CMA(MD)/1397/2013 of THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE Vs SARASWATHY,W/O. MURUGANANTHAN on 2 November 2026

JUDGMENT

The fourth respondent in M.C.O.P.No.107 of 2009, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional Principal Sub Judge, Tenkasi, has filed this appeal challenging the award dated 22.11.2011.

2. Facts of the case:

2.1. The appellant-Insurance Company had insured the lorry bearing Registration No.KLV 7277. According to the claimants, on 13.02.2009 at about 8.15 a.m., while the deceased Muruganandam was working as a driver of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation bus bearing Registration No. TN-74-N-1073, proceeding on the Nagercoil-Tirunelveli Bypass Road, the offending lorry bearing Registration No. KLV 7277 was driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the bus.

Due to the impact, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same.

2.2. The legal representatives/dependants of the deceased filed M.C.O.P.No.107 of 2009 claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-. The appellant- Insurance Company filed its counter disputing the manner of the accident, negligence, liability and quantum of compensation. The Transport Corporation also filed its counter disputing the allegations and seeking to absolve itself from liability.

2.3. In order to establish the claim on the side of the claimants P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P12 were marked Ex.P-12. On the side of the respondents R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 were marked.

3. Findings of the Tribunal:

3.1. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred due to the composite negligence of both vehicles and apportioned the negligence at 40% on the driver of the offending lorry and 60% on the driver of the Transport Corporation bus. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.18,95,000/- with interest of 7.5% from the date of filing the claim petition under the following heads: Sl.No . Heads Amount in Rs.

Loss of Income 18,00,000/-

Loss of consortium 25,000/-

Transport 10,000/-

Loss of Love and affection 50,000/-

Funeral Expenses 10,000/- Total 18,95,000/-

3.2. Aggrieved by the said finding, the Insurance Company has preferred this appeal, primarily questioning the fixation of 40% negligence on the driver of the offending lorry.

4. Submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company:

4.1. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that there was sufficient evidence to establish that the deceased, who was driving the Transport Corporation bus, was himself responsible for the accident and, therefore, the appellant could not be fastened with liability to the extent of 40%. It was further contended that the Tribunal had awarded an excessive amount of compensation and had fixed the monthly income at Rs.12,500/- without sufficient evidence.

5. Submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 5/claimants:

5.1. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that the Tribunal, after appreciating the entire evidence on record, had rightly apportioned the negligence at 60:40. It was also pointed out that the Transport Corporation had not preferred any appeal against the said finding. With regard to quantum, it was submitted that the salary certificate had been produced and duly considered by the Tribunal. The learned counsel further sought enhancement of compensation by invoking Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

6. This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.

7. Points for Consideration:

7.1. The following points arise for consideration:

(i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in fixing the negligence at 40% on the driver of the offending lorry and 60% on the driver of the Transport Corporation bus?

(ii) Whether the compensation of Rs.18,95,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?

8. Discussion on Negligence:

8.1. P.W.2, who was the conductor of the Transport Corporation bus, was examined and his evidence has been considered by the Tribunal. The other oral and documentary evidence available on record also supports the occurrence of the accident involving both vehicles. Significantly, the appellant-Insurance Company has not adduced any contra evidence to establish that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the deceased.

8.2. On appreciation of the entire evidence, the Tribunal has arrived at a finding that both vehicles were responsible for the occurrence and apportioned the negligence at 40% on the offending lorry and 60% on the Transport Corporation bus. The Transport Corporation, against which 60% negligence was fixed, has not preferred any appeal challenging the said finding.

8.3. This Court finds that the said finding is based on a proper appreciation of the evidence available on record. No perversity or error in the appreciation of evidence has been demonstrated by the appellant warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, the finding of the Tribunal fixing 40% negligence on the driver of the offending lorry and 60% on the driver of the Transport Corporation bus is hereby confirmed.

9. Discussion on quantum of Compensation:

9.1. The deceased was aged 36 years at the time of the accident. The claimants are his wife, minor children and parents. The Tribunal, taking into

consideration the salary certificate produced on behalf of the claimants, fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.12,500/-. Having regard to the number of dependants, the Tribunal deducted one-fourth towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased and adopted the multiplier of 16.

9.2. On the basis of the said income, deduction and multiplier, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.18,95,000/-. The learned counsel for the appellant has not demonstrated that the fixation of income at Rs.12,500/- was contrary to the salary certificate or the evidence available on record.

9.3. The age of the deceased, the number of dependants, the applicable multiplier and the deduction towards personal expenses have all been duly considered by the Tribunal. This Court therefore finds no error in the assessment of compensation warranting interference. Accordingly, both the points are answered against the appellant.

9.4. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants sought enhancement of compensation by invoking Order XLI Rule 33 CPC. However, in view of the fact that the Tribunal has assessed the income on the basis of the salary certificate and applied the appropriate multiplier and deduction, this Court finds no ground to enhance the compensation under Order XLI Rule 33 CPC.

10. Result:

10.1. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the award dated 22.11.2011 passed in M.C.O.P. No.107 of 2009 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional Principal Sub Judge, Tenkasi, is confirmed.

10.2. The appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit 40% of the total compensation, payable to the claimants, together with proportionate interest and costs, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

10.3. The Transport Corporation is liable to pay the remaining 60% of the total compensation, payable to the claimants together with proportionate interest and costs.

10.4. On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the amount in the apportionment fixed by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 02-11-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No sbn To

1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Additional Principal Sub Judge, Tenkasi.

2. The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,Madurai.

K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J. sbn CMA(MD) No.1397 of 2013 02-11-2026