CMA/1863/2022 of Inun Jariya Vs E.Panner Selvam on 27 October 2026

JUDGMENT

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to herein by their respective ranks before the Tribunal.

2. The unsuccessful claimants have preferred the present appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation. The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act [hereinafter referred to as ‘the MV Act’], seeking compensation for the death of one Manjur Ali, who died in a road accident.

3. The first claimant is the wife, and the second claimant is the mother of the deceased.

4. According to the claimants, on 08.06.2015, at about 07.00 hours, the deceased was riding his Hero Honda motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN 46 L 6225 and attempted to cross the road from north towards south in the Perambalur Bypass Road at Alambadi road junction. At that time, a lorry bearing Registration No.TN 04 AH 9896 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner from east towards west, dashed against the deceased’s motorcycle and caused the accident. Due to the accident, the deceased was thrown out from the motorcycle, sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot.

5. According to the claimants, taking advantage of the death of the deceased, the first respondent’s driver gave a false complaint and a criminal case was registered against the deceased.

6. The first respondent is the owner of the lorry, the second respondent is the insurer of the lorry and the third respondent is the insurer of the Hero Honda motorcycle. Therefore, the claimants contended that the respondents were jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

7. The first respondent was called absent and set ex parte before the Tribunal.

8. The second respondent/Insurance Company has filed a counter statement, wherein it was stated that the deceased had suddenly crossed the main road junction and dashed against the lorry and that he was solely responsible for the accident.

9. The third respondent/Insurance Company also filed a counter statement, wherein they denied the manner of the accident. It was contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver and that a FIR has been falsely registered against the deceased. Hence, the claimants contended that they were entitled to seek compensation against respondents 1 and 2.

10. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimants, the second claimant herself was examined as P.W.1, Mrs.Karthikayini was examined as P.W.2, and Mr.Anandhbabu was examined as P.W.3. Exs.P1 to P20 and Exs.X1 to X4, Ex.X7 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and Exs.X5, X6, X8 and Ex.R1 were marked.

11. Upon appreciation of the evidence adduced on either side, the Tribunal found that the claimants had not chosen to examine any eyewitness to prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent’s lorry.

12. The Tribunal observed that the right-side body of the lorry alone was damaged. The rough sketch marked as Ex.X6, which shows that the accident occurred when the deceased was riding his motorcycle from north to south and the lorry was travelling from west to east. The scene of occurrence was shown in the middle of the four road junction on the eastern side.

13. In the absence of any independent witness on the side of the claimants to establish the manner of the accident, the Tribunal concluded that the accident occurred solely due to the negligent riding of the deceased.

14. The Tribunal also found that the Insurance Company of the deceased’s two-wheeler had been impleaded as the third respondent and that the policy was a package policy. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the claimants were entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards personal accident coverage and directed the third respondent to pay the said amount to the claimants and accordingly, the claim petition was dismissed as against respondents 1 and 2.

15. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants have preferred the present appeal, challenging the finding of negligence fixed on the deceased.

16. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants would submit that the Tribunal failed to consider the negligent act of the first respondent’s driver and also failed to consider the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3.

17. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Insurance Company would submit that, upon appreciation of the evidence adduced on either side, the Tribunal rightly concluded that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent act of the deceased. The Tribunal also rightly concluded that the Insurance Company of the deceased’s two-wheeler alone was liable to pay compensation under the package policy and correctly awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of personal accident coverage.

18. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the records carefully.

19. According to the claimants, on 08.06.2015, at about 07.00 hours, the deceased was riding his motorcycle and attempted to cross the road from north towards south on Perambalur Bypass Road. At that time, the driver of the first respondent’s lorry, travelling from east to west in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased’s motorcycle and caused the accident.

20. In order to prove the manner of the accident, it is relevant to note that the claimants have not chosen to examine any independent eyewitness. Admittedly, P.W.1 is not an eyewitness.

21. A perusal of Ex.P1/FIR and Ex.X5/final report shows that a criminal case was registered against the deceased and that the final report was filed referring the case on the ground that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the deceased.

22. A perusal of Exs.X3 and X4, the motor vehicle inspection reports, reveals that the right-side body of the lorry alone was damaged. A perusal of Ex.X6, the rough sketch, reveals that the scene of occurrence was shown in the middle of the four-road junction of the eastern side.

23. It is relevant to note that the claimants have not chosen to examine any eyewitness to prove that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent’s lorry.

24. A perusal of Ex.P19, the copy of the certificate-cum-policy schedule relating to the third respondent’s vehicle bearing Registration No. TN 46 L 6225, shows that it is a package policy. It is not in dispute that the deceased was the owner-cum-rider of the two-wheeler.

25. In such circumstances, considering the nature of the policy, this Court is of the considered opinion that the claimants are entitled to personal accident coverage of Rs.1,00,000/- and that the third respondent is liable to pay the said compensation to the claimants.

26. In the absence of independent eyewitnesses on the side of the claimants to establish negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Tribunal rightly concluded that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent act of the deceased. The Tribunal also rightly held that the claimants were entitled to personal accident coverage of Rs.1,00,000/- under the package policy and dismissed the claim petition as against respondents 1 and 2, while directing the third respondent/Insurance Company to pay the said amount.

27. The findings of the Tribunal do not warrant any interference by this Court.

28. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. The award passed by the Tribunal, directing the third respondent/Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards personal accident coverage is confirmed. The third respondent/ Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount towards personal accident coverage along with interest and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, to the credit of MCOP.No.787 of 2015 on the file of the Hon’ble Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Perambalur. On such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the amount, along with interest and costs, less the amount, if any, already withdrawn, as per the apportionment fixed by the Tribunal by making proper application before the Tribunal. The other directions issued by the Tribunal with regard to the mode of payment of compensation remains unaltered. The manner and mode of disbursement of compensation shall be as per the order of the Tribunal. No costs. 27-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No kak To

1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Judge / Principal District Judge, Perambalur.

2. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.

M.JOTHIRAMAN, J. kak CMA No. 1863 of 2022 27-10-2026