CMA(MD)/89/2018 of M/S.NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD Vs S.RAJESWARI on 2 November 2026

J U D G M E N T

The second respondent in M.C.O.P. No.2781 of 2015, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, V Additional District Judge, Madurai, has preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in C.M.A.(MD).No.89 of 2018, challenging the award passed by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P. No.2781 of

2015, dated 28.07.2017.

2. Facts

of

the

case:

2.1. The case of the claimants is that, on 30.09.2015 at about 8.00 p.m., the deceased, namely, Suresh was riding his Pulsar motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-58-Y-5218 on Thirupparankundram Periyaradha Veethi, from east to west, keeping to the extreme left side of the road. When he was proceeding near Radha Mahal, the Innova car bearing Registration No.TN-63- AC-5580, which was proceeding in the same direction, overtook the deceased's two-wheeler and suddenly halted. The driver of the Innova car opened the door without noticing the motor cycle of deceased closing in on. As a result, the deceased hit the door, lost his balance and fell down on the road. At that time, another vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-59-AH-7979, which was insured with the fourth respondent/Oriental Insurance Company, came in the opposite direction and ran over the deceased. As a result of the injuries sustained in the accident, the deceased died. Therefore, the dependants of the deceased filed M.C.O.P.No.2781 of 2015 before the Tribunal, claiming compensation of Rs.40,00,000/-.

2.2. The respective Insurance Companies and the other respondents filed their counters denying the allegations contained in the claim petition. They

disputed the manner of occurrence, negligence attributed to the respective vehicles and the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimants.

2.3. The fourth respondent/Oriental Insurance Company specifically denied its liability and contended that the deceased was riding the motorcycle in the middle of the road in a rash and negligent manner and that the accident had occurred solely due to his negligence. It was therefore contended that the fourth respondent was not liable to pay any compensation.

2.4. In order to substantiate their case, on the side of the claimants P.W.1 to P.W.4 were examined and marked Exs.P1 to P32 were marked On the side of the respondents, Exs.R1 and R2 were marked and no witness was examined. Exs.X1 to X3 were also marked as Court exhibits.

3. Findings of the Tribunal:

3.1. The learned Tribunal Judge, after considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the drivers of both the vehicles were responsible for the accident and apportioned the negligence equally at 50% each. The Tribunal thereafter awarded a sum of

Rs.39,91,000/- as compensation under the following heads, together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization: Sl.No. Heads Amount in Rs.

Transportation Charges 5,000/-

Damages caused to clothes and Cell Phone 1,000/-

Loss of Love and Affection 2,20,000/-

Mental Shock ------

Consortium to the 1st petitioner 1,00,000/-

Funeral Expenses 20,000/-

Compensation

for pecuniary benefits and compensation for future prosperous from the deceased 36,45,000/- Total 39,91,000/-

3.2. Aggrieved by the said award dated 28.07.2017, the Second respondent/National Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal.

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

4.1. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company would submit that the deceased himself was responsible for the accident, as he was riding the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner. According to the learned counsel, when the Innova car was stopped and, the driver opened the door, the deceased, without noticing the same, dashed against the door and fell down. At that time, the other vehicle coming from the opposite direction ran over him. The learned counsel would submit that the said aspect was not properly appreciated by the Tribunal and that the same is evident from the sketch marked as Ex.R1. It is therefore contended that the Tribunal ought to have fixed negligence on the part of the deceased also, instead of mechanically apportioning the liability at 50% each between the two vehicles.

4.2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company would further submit that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is also excessive. According to him, in terms of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, only 40% could have been added towards future prospects, whereas the Tribunal had added 50%. It is further contended that the amounts awarded under the heads of loss of love and affection and consortium are excessive and contrary to the guidelines laid down in Pranay Sethi. Hence, the learned counsel sought reduction of the compensation.

4.3. The learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company covering the other vehicle would submit that the Tribunal had correctly appreciated the evidence and rightly fixed the negligence at 50% each. However, the said Insurance Company disputed the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

5. Submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4/claimants:

5.1. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants would submit that the evidence of the independent witness clearly establishes that the driver of the Innova car suddenly opened the door without noticing the motorcycle closing in on. As a result, the deceased hit the door and fell down and was run over by the vehicle coming in the opposite direction. According to the learned counsel, the said evidence was properly appreciated by the Tribunal and the negligence was rightly apportioned at 50% each between the two vehicles. Hence, no interference is warranted with the finding of the Tribunal.

5.2. Further, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants would submit that, having regard to the date of the accident and the age of the deceased, the addition of 50% towards future prospects was justified. It is further submitted that, considering the young widow and minor children left behind by the deceased, the compensation awarded under the various conventional heads does not warrant interference.

6. This Court has considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for both parties and perused the entire records.

7. The following points arise for consideration in the present appeal:

(i) Whether the finding of the Tribunal fixing negligence at 50% each upon the drivers of the two offending vehicles is sustainable in law?

(ii) Whether the compensation of Rs.39,91,000/- awarded by the Tribunal requires any interference?

8. Discussion on Negligence:

8.1. As regards the first point, this Court has carefully perused the evidence of P.W.2, who is an independent eyewitness to the occurrence. P.W.2 has clearly deposed that the Innova car overtook the deceased's motorcycle and suddenly halted and that the driver of the car opened the door without giving any signal or noticing the motorcycle closely following it. As a result, the deceased dashed against the open door of the Innova car, lost his balance and fell down on the road. At that point of time, the vehicle coming from the opposite direction ran over the deceased, resulting in his death.

8.2. The evidence of P.W.2 was subjected to extensive cross-examination. However, nothing material was elicited from him to discredit or disprove his version. His evidence is also corroborated by the final report filed against the drivers of both the vehicles. The sketch and other materials available on record also lend support to the version of P.W.2.

8.3. Therefore, this Court finds that the evidence of P.W.2 is cogent, consistent and trustworthy. The learned Tribunal has properly appreciated the said evidence and rightly concluded that both the vehicles contributed to the occurrence. The apportionment of negligence at 50% each is therefore in accordance with law and does not warrant interference by this Court.

9. Discussion on quantum:

9.1. As regards the quantum of compensation, it is not in dispute that the deceased was aged about 28 years on the date of the accident, i.e., 30.09.2015. He was working as an Assistant Manager in a company called Joy Sanitation. In order to establish the income of the deceased, the Accountant of the said establishment was examined as a witness.

9.2. It is the evidence of P.W.3, the Accountant of Joy Sanitation, that the deceased was working as an Assistant Manager in the said establishment and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.50,000/-. The salary certificate issued by the employer was also marked as Ex.P32. Apart from the same, the educational qualifications of the deceased, namely, B.Com. and Diploma in Computer Applications, were also produced in evidence.

9.3. Considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, this Court finds that the Tribunal was justified in fixing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/-. There were four claimants, namely, the wife, minor children and the parents of the deceased. Accordingly, the Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 18 for determining the loss of dependency.

9.4. However, the Tribunal had erroneously added 50% towards future prospects. In view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, the deceased, being aged about 28 years and being in employment, is entitled to an addition of 40% towards future prospects. Therefore, the addition towards future prospects is reduced from 50% to 40%. Rs.15,000/- + 40% X 18 X 12 = 45,36,000/- Personal Expenses (¼ deduction) = 14,36,000 (-) 11,34,000 = 34,02,000/-

9.5. The Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the second claimant under the head of loss of love and affection, Rs.50,000/- to the wife and Rs.10,000/- to the parents of the deceased under the said head. The amounts awarded under the heads of loss of love and affection and consortium are not in consonance with the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi. Therefore, the compensation under the conventional heads also requires suitable modification, which is as follows: Sl. No. Heads Amount Awarded by the Tribunal Amount Re- quantified by this Court Status

Transportatio n 5,000/- 5,000/- Confirmed

Damages to clothes and articles 1,000/- 1,000/- Confirmed

Loss of love and affection 2,20,000/- 1,20,000/- Reduced

Consortium 1,00,000/- 40,000/- Reduced

Funeral Expenses 20,000/- 20,000/- Confirmed

Compensatio n

for pecuniary benefits and compensation for

future prosperous from

the deceased 36,45,000/- 34,02,000/- Reduced Total 39,91,000/- 35,88,000/- Reduced

9.6. In view of the above modification, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reduced from Rs.39,91,000/- to Rs.35,88,000/-, together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization.

9.7. It is pertinent to note that the Insurance Company covering the other offending vehicle, namely, Oriental Insurance Company, has not preferred any appeal challenging either the finding regarding negligence or the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to disturb the award insofar as the liability of the said Insurance Company is concerned.

10. Conclusion:

10.1. However, since the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company challenging the liability and quantum, the reduction in the compensation determined by this Court shall enure to the benefit of the appellant/National Insurance Company alone. Accordingly, the liability of the appellant/Insurance Company, which was fixed at 50% by the Tribunal, is hereby confirmed.

10.2. Consequently, the appellant/National Insurance Company is liable to pay a sum of Rs.13,91,000/-. However, taking into consideration the amount already deposited, if any, and the proportionate liability determined by the Tribunal, the appellant/ National Insurance Company is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.13,91,000/- towards its share of the compensation, together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of deposit, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

10.3. On such deposit being made, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the amount in the proportion fixed by the learned Tribunal, after adjusting any amount already withdrawn or deposited, as the case may be.

11. Result:

11.1. Accordingly, the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in M.C.O.P. No.2781 of 2015, dated 28.07.2017, fixing 50% liability upon the appellant/National Insurance Company is hereby confirmed. However, the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reduced from Rs.39,91,000/- to Rs.35,87,000/-. But the appellant insurance company is directed to pay only a sum of Rs.13,91,000/- with 7.5% interest.

11.2. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 02.11.2026 NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes/No sbn To

1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The V Additional District Judge, Madurai.

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

K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J. sbn C.M.A.(MD).No.89 of 2018