CMA/3431/2026 of The Chief Executive Claim Officer Vs Rajalakshmi on 8 October 2026

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.Dhandapani J.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the Appellant Insurance company challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Judge, Villupuram, dated 28.04.2026, questioning its liability as well as the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

2. The 1st claimant is the wife of the deceased. The 2nd and 3rd claimants are the sons of the deceased. The 4th claimant is the mother of the deceased. The case of the appellant is that, on 24.02.2024, at about 08:30 pm, while the deceased was proceeding in his two wheeler from Villupuram towards Gingee driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the paddy harvesting vehicle bearing registration no.TN-73-AX-2340 which was parked on the left side of the main road resulting in collision of both the vehicles. Consequently, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. Pursuant to which, an FIR came to be registered in Crime No.199 of 2024 as against the driver of the offending vehicle. Subsequently, the claimants filed the claim petition in MCOP No.414 of 2024 before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,00,000/- towards the death of the deceased.

3. The Tribunal, on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the entire negligence was attributable as against the rider of the offending vehicle/paddy harvesting vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-73-AX-2340 and proceeded to fix the total compensation at Rs.1,68,32,300/- under various heads payable to the claimants.

4. The above compensation was directed to be paid with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of accident. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed before this Court by the Insurance company questioning its liability and quantum of compensation.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant insurance company submitted that the deceased was not wearing a helmet at the time of accident due to which, he sustained head injuries which was the cause for the death of the deceased and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have fixed the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased as well. It was further contended that the appellant insured vehicle belonging to the 1st respondent was not parked on the middle of the road and that sufficient space was available on the right side of the said vehicle. It was further contended that the said vehicle was undergoing repair and that its hazard lights were switched on. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the two wheeler in which, the deceased was traveling which dashed against the rear portion of the appellant insured vehicle. However, the Tribunal without properly appreciating these aspects, had erroneously fastened the entire liability on the part of the 1st respondent which is not sustainable. It is further contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant more particularly under the head ‘Loss of Income’ and therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal requires interference.

6. Since no adverse order is being passed against the respondents, notice to the respondents is dispensed with.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the materials available on record.

8. The Appellant Insurance Company has challenged its liability to pay on account of the negligence fixed on the part of the 1st respondent on the ground that the deceased was not wearing helmet at the time of accident However, a perusal of the impugned award of the Tribunal reveals that the Tribunal has categorically recorded a finding that in the defence, the insurance company had not taken a stand that the deceased was not wearing a helmet while riding the vehicle and for the first time in the Court, the insurance company had taken the defence that the deceased was not wearing a helmet. Further, the Tribunal had held that though such a defence was taken before the Court for the first time, however, no queries with regard to the same had been put before any of the witnesses and no answer had been obtained that the deceased was not wearing a helmet. Such being the case, no material having been placed before the Tribunal with regard to the said stand, the Tribunal had considered all the materials and held that the insurer had not established that the deceased was not wearing a helmet at the time of the accident, the said contention before this Court cannot be sustained.

9. The further claim of the appellant relates to the manner in which the offending vehicle was alleged to have been parked at the time of accident. Though a contention in this regard had been raised before the Tribunal, the Tribunal on the basis of the evidence of PW2, who had clearly deposed that the harvesting vehicle was parked in the middle of the road without any signal or warning indication, has rendered a categorical finding that, in order to disprove the same, no witnesses were examined on the side of the appellant before the Tribunal to show that the offending vehicle was stationed on the left side of the road for repair with danger lights switched on. Such being the finding, the insurance company cannot try to absolve itself of its liability.

10. Insofar as the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, this Court had perused Ex.P-23 (salary certificate of the deceased) which reveals that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.88,000/- per month. However, in order to disprove the same, no materials has been placed by the Appellant

Insurance Company either before this Court or before the Tribunal. In the absence of any such material, we are of the view that, by no stretch the compensation awarded under the head ‘Loss of Income’ could be said to be excessive or disproportionate. Further, this Court finds that the compensation awarded under other heads is also just and reasonable. Therefore, in the considered view of this Court, we do not find any perversity in the impugned award passed by the Tribunal and we find that the Tribunal has fixed a reasonable amount as a compensation to be payable to the claimants.

11. In the light of the above discussion, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed. The insurance company is directed to deposit the entire award amount together with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of claim petition till date of deposit and costs as ordered by the Tribunal, less the amount, if any, already deposited, to the credit of MCOP No.414 of 2024 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special District Judge, Villupuram, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit being made, the Tribunal is directed to disburse the compensation amount apportioned to the share of the 1st and 4th claimant along with accrued interest and costs through RTGS directly to the bank account of the said claimants within a period of two weeks from the date of deposit being made by the appellant/insurance company. Insofar as the share of the minors 2nd and 3rd claimants are concerned, the Tribunal is directed to deposit the same in an interest bearing fixed deposit till the said claimants attain majority and the interest that accrues on the said amount shall be paid to the 1st claimant every quarter to be utilized for the benefit of the minor 2nd and 3rd claimants. The 2nd and 3rd claimants, subject to their attainment of majority and production of proof thereof with regard to their majority, are permitted to withdraw their share of apportionment by filing appropriate application before the Tribunal. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (M.D.I.,J.) (P.D.B.,J.) 08-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No NHS To The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Villupuram (Special District Judge, Villupuram).

M.DHANDAPANI, J. AND P.DHANABAL, J. NHS CMA No. 3431 of 2026 and C.M.P.No.27534 of 2026 08-10-2026