CMA(MD)/485/2018 of THE BRANCH MANAGER Vs PANNEERE @ PANNEERSELVAM on 2 November 2026

J U D G M E N T

The second respondent-Insurance Company in M.C.O.P. No.833 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Special Sub Judge for M.C.O.P. Cases, Thanjavur has filed the present C.M.A.(MD).No.485 of 2018, challenging the award dated 22.01.2018 passed in M.C.O.P. No.833 of 2015.

2. Facts of the case:

2.1. The claimant in M.C.O.P. No.833 of 2015 was working as a cleaner- cum-loadman in the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-09-Z-2025. On 17.03.2015, the claimant travelled in the said lorry in his capacity as a cleaner- cum-loadman. It is stated that the lorry was being used for transporting persons who were proceeding to attend a funeral. While the lorry was proceeding, the driver suddenly applied the brake in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which the claimant, who was travelling in the lorry, fell down and sustained injuries to his head, hip and other parts of the body.

2.2. The claimant was admitted in the hospital and underwent treatment, including surgery for the head injury. According to him, he was earning more than Rs.21,000/- per month as a loadman and, on account of the injuries sustained in the accident, he was unable to continue his avocation. Hence, he filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- with interest.

2.3. The Insurance Company filed its counter denying that the claimant was employed as a cleaner or loadman of the lorry. According to the Insurance Company, the claimant had travelled in the lorry along with other villagers who were proceeding to attend the funeral and, therefore, he was only a gratuitous passenger. It was contended that the policy did not cover the risk of such a passenger and that there was a violation of the policy conditions. The quantum of compensation was also disputed.

2.4. Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and were examined two other witnesses as PW2 and PW3. Exs.P1 to P9 were marked on his side. On the side of the respondents, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.R1 and R2 were marked.

3. Findings of the Tribunal:

3.1. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal accepted the evidence of the claimant that he was working as a cleaner-cum-loadman in the insured lorry. The Tribunal also found that his evidence on this aspect had not been effectively controverted in cross- examination. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,39,000/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition.

3.2. However, the Tribunal fixed 90% liability on the insured vehicle and 10% contributory negligence on the claimant, observing that the claimant had also been careless while travelling in the lorry and had failed to hold his grip when the driver suddenly applied the brake. Sl.No. Heads Amounts in Rs.

Partial

Permanent Disability 90,000/-

Pain and Sufferings 1,00,000/-

Loss of amenities 50,000/-

Loss of expectation of life 50,000/-

Medical expenses -----

Extra Nourishment 10,000/-

Attendant Charges 5,000/-

Transportation expenses 10,000/-

Loss of Income 24,000/- Total Compensation Awarded Rs.3,39,000/-

3.3. Aggrieved by the said award, the appellant / Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal.

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

4.1. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company would submit that there was no satisfactory evidence to establish that the claimant was employed as a cleaner-cum-loadman in the lorry. According to the learned counsel, the materials on record would indicate that the claimant had travelled along with the villagers as a passenger for attending a funeral. Therefore, he was only a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle and the Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify the owner in respect of the said risk. It is further submitted that the said aspect was not properly appreciated by the Tribunal. The learned counsel, however, does not dispute the quantum of compensation and confines the challenge to the liability.

5. Submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents/claimant:

5.1. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the claimant would submit that the Tribunal has considered the entire evidence and rightly accepted the claimant's specific case that he was working as a cleaner-cum-loadman of the insured lorry. It is further submitted that, despite sufficient opportunity, the Insurance Company did not effectively cross-examine the claimant on this aspect. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal.

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

7. The following point arises for consideration:

(i) Whether the appellant-Insurance Company has established that the claimant was a gratuitous passenger in the insured lorry and, consequently, that it was not liable to satisfy the award?

8. Discussion and findings:

8.1. P.W.1, in his chief examination, has categorically deposed that he was working as a cleaner-cum-loadman in the insured lorry bearing Registration No.TN-09-Z-2025. The specific case of the Insurance Company is that the claimant had travelled in the vehicle as a passenger along with other persons who were proceeding to attend a funeral.

8.2. However, the said contention of the Insurance Company is not supported by any convincing evidence. More importantly, the claimant's specific evidence that he was employed as a cleaner-cum-loadman has not been effectively challenged in cross-examination. The Insurance Company had sufficient opportunity to cross-examine P.W.1 on this material aspect. In the absence of an effective challenge to a specific and material assertion made by a witness, the evidentiary value of such assertion cannot be brushed aside merely on the basis of a contrary plea in the counter.

8.3. It is a settled principle of appreciation of evidence that when a material assertion made by a witness in chief examination is not controverted by way of cross-examination, the Court is entitled to take note of such absence of challenge while assessing the truth of the assertion. In the present case, the Insurance Company has not placed sufficient material to establish that the claimant was merely a gratuitous passenger.

8.4. The Tribunal has therefore rightly accepted the claimant's evidence that he was travelling in the insured vehicle in his capacity as a cleaner-cum- loadman. The contention of the Insurance Company that the claimant was a gratuitous passenger is consequently not established.

8.5. This Court finds no perversity or infirmity in the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the question of the status of the claimant. The challenge to the liability, therefore, fails.

8.6. The appellant-Insurance Company has not challenged the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has fixed 10% contributory negligence on the claimant and consequently fastened 90% liability on the insured vehicle. Since the present appeal is confined to the question of liability and the quantum has not been seriously disputed, there is no need to reopen the said issue.

9. Result:

9.1. Accordingly, this C.M.A.(MD).No.485 of 2018 is dismissed, confirming the award dated 22.01.2018 passed in M.C.O.P. No.833 of 2015 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Special Sub Judge for M.C.O.P. Cases, Thanjavur.

9.2. The appellant-Insurance Company shall deposit 90% of the award amount, together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of deposit, after adjusting the amount, if any, already deposited, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

9.3. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the amount in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.

02.11.2026 NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes/No aas To

1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, The Special Sub Court, Thanjavur.

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

K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J. aas C.M.A.(MD).No.485 of 2018