CMA/1324/2023 of RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD Vs KASTHURI on 26 October 2026

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.Dhandapani J.) Challenging the finding on negligence as well as the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.11 of 2019, dated 29.11.2022, the insurance company has filed the present appeal.

2. The respondents 1 to 3/claimants are the wife, daughter and mother of the deceased Sivaraj. On 30.08.2018 at about 06.30 p.m., when the deceased was riding his motorcycle bearing Regn.No.TN-18-AJ-834 at Athipattu Pudhu Nagar, the offending vehicle lorry bearing Regn.No.TN-18-AZ-4912, belong to the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent, was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased. As a result, the deceased sustained fatal injuries all over his body and died at Stanley Hospital. Therefore, the claimants have filed a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming a compensation of Rs.92,16,000/-, which was restricted to Rs.21,00,000/- for the death of the deceased.

3. Before the Tribunal, the claimants have examined 2 witnesses viz., P.W.1 and P.W.2 and marked 10 documents viz., Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10. On the side of the respondents, they have examined 2 witnesses as R.W.1 and R.W.2 and marked 3 documents viz., Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.3. After adjudication, the Tribunal has allowed the petition and awarded a sum of Rs.25,21,000/- as compensation to the claimants. Aggrieved by the said Award, the insurance company has filed the appeal challenging the findings on negligence and the quantum of compensation.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company would submit that at the time of accident, the deceased was not wearing a helmet and did not possess a valid driving licence. To support its claim, the appellant/insurance company has let in evidence through R.W.1, the Assistant RTO. Further, he submitted that as per Ex.R.3, the copy of the Accident Register, it is clear that the deceased was admitted in the hospital under the state of alcohol. Despite the oral and documentary evidence, no negligence was attributed to the deceased, which is wholly unsustainable. He further submitted that though the claimants claimed that the deceased was working as a lorry driver earning a sum of Rs.35,000/- per month at the time of the accident, however, they failed to provide any appropriate document to substantiate the same. When such being the case, the Tribunal had fixed a sum of Rs.15,000/- as notional income of the deceased, which is on the higher side. Accordingly, he prays for allowing this appeal.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2/ claimants 1 and 2 would submit that the claimants had established the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle by marking Ex.P1/F.I.R. and examining P.W.2, an eyewitness to the occurrence. The evidence of P.W.2 and the F.I.R. clearly establish the manner in which the accident occurred. Further, there is no averments found regarding the allegation that the deceased was under the influence of alcohol at the time of accident. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on record, rightly fixed negligence on the driver of the lorry, and there is no ground to interfere with the said finding. He further submitted that based on the materials available on record, the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation under various heads and, therefore, the same does not require any interference. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of appeal.

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-insurance company and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2/ claimants 1 and 2 and perused the materials available on record.

7. As regards negligence, this Court has carefully scrutinised the evidence of P.W.2, who is an eyewitness alongside Ex.P1, the copy of F.I.R. The testimony of P.W.2 clearly outlines the rash and high-speed manoeuvring of the offending lorry that directly led to the collision. The appellant-Insurance Company relies on Ex.R.3, copy of the Accident Register, to assert that the deceased was under the influence of alcohol. It is a well-settled principle of law that the mere presence of alcohol or an "alcoholic breath" noted in a medical entry is insufficient to prove contributory negligence. No scientific report or quantitative proof was produced to demonstrate that the deceased was incapable of driving or that his state contributed to the crash. Furthermore, regarding the lack of a driving licence and helmet, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that driving without a licence or helmet does not automatically equal contributory negligence unless a direct causal nexus is proven between the omission and the occurrence of the accident itself. The mechanical impact was initiated solely by the rash driving of the lorry driver. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that the driver of the offending vehicle was solely responsible for the accident is perfectly sound and suffers from no infirmity.

8. As regards the quantum of compensation, it is noted that the claimants asserted the deceased was working as a heavy vehicle driver. Even in cases where exact documentary proof of income is missing, the Courts must adopt a realistic and pragmatic approach considering the cost of living and minimum wage indicators at the time of the accident. A skilled heavy vehicle driver naturally commands a decent wage structure. Considering the nature of the employment and prevailing socio-economic factors, the fixation of a notional income of Rs.15,000/- per month by the Tribunal cannot be termed excessive or robust as per the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Andal & Ors. v. Avinav Kannan and another [2019 (1) TN MAC 54 (DB)]. It represents a balanced assessment to ensure "just compensation" as mandated by the Motor Vehicles Act. The computation under other conventional heads also aligns securely with established statutory limits and judicial precedents. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads are also not shown to warrant interference. Hence, this appeal is liable to be dismissed.

9. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the impugned award dated 29.11.2022 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (IV Additional District and Sessions Judge), Tiruvallur at Ponneri is confirmed. The appellant-insurance company is directed to deposit the entire award amount as awarded by the Tribunal to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.11 of 2019 along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit and costs as awarded by the Tribunal, less, the amount, if any already deposited, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit being made, the Tribunal is directed to transfer the share of the 1st respondent/1st claimant directly to her bank account through RTGS within a period of two (2) weeks thereafter. Further, the Tribunal is also directed to deposit the share of the 2nd respondent/2nd claimant in an interest yielding fixed deposit with any one of the Nationalised Banks, initially for a period of one year to be renewed at periodic intervals until she attains majority and interest derived from out of the said deposit shall be paid to the 1st respondent, who is the mother of the 2nd respondent, every quarter, to be utilised for the welfare of the said minor claimant. After attaining majority, it is open to the 2nd respondent/2nd claimant to file necessary application to establish her majority, at which point of time, the Tribunal is directed to transfer the amount in the fixed deposit directly to the bank account of the 2nd respondent/2nd claimant through RTGS within a period of two (2) weeks thereafter. No costs. Consequently, the connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed. (M.D.I.,J.) (A.D.M.C.,J.) 26-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No sp To The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (IV Additional District and Sessions Judge), Tiruvallur at Ponneri.

M.DHANDAPANI, J. AND DR.A.D.MARIA CLETE, J. sp C.M.A.No.1324 of 2023 and C.M.P.No.13260 of 2023 26-10-2026