THE IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INS CO LTD vs M.JEGANATHAN

CMA Nos. 210 & 211 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
CMA No. 210 of 2020
{CNR:HCMA011456652019}
and
CMA No. 211 of 2020
CNR:{HCMA011456642019}
and
CMP.Nos.1615 & 1621 of 2020
CMA No. 210 of 2020
{CNR:HCMA011456652019}
The IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co Ltd.,
No.43/3, First Floor, 100 Feet Road,
Mudaliarpet, Pondicherry – 605 004.
..Appellant(s)
Vs
1. M.Jeganathan
2. Shri Chandram
..Respondent(s)
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgement and decree dated 25.04.2019 made in
MCOP NO.238 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Special Sub Court, Cuddalore.
For Appellant(s): Mr.S.Arun Kumar
For Respondent(s): No appearance
(For RR1 & R2)
Page 1 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:56:16 pm )

CMA Nos. 210 & 211 of 2020
CMA No. 211 of 2020
CNR:{HCMA011456642019}
The IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co Ltd.,
No.43/3, First Floor, 100 Feet Road,
Mudaliarpet, Pondicherry – 605 004.
..Appellant(s)
Vs
1. G. Mohanasundaram
2. Shri Chandram
..Respondent(s)
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgement and decree dated 25.04.2019 made in
MCOP NO.239 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Special Sub Court, Cuddalore.
For Appellant(s): Mr.S.Arun Kumar
For Respondent(s): No appearance
(For RR1 & R2)
COMMON JUDGMENT
For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to herein by their
respective ranks before the Tribunal.
2. Unsuccessful Insurance Company has preferred these appeals,
challenging the negligence fixed on its part.
Page 2 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:56:16 pm )

CMA Nos. 210 & 211 of 2020
3. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in C.M.A. No. 210 of 2020 has been filed
against the award passed in M.C.O.P. No. 238 of 2016, pertaining to one
M.Jeganathan. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in C.M.A. No. 211 of 2020 has been
filed against the award passed in M.C.O.P. No. 239 of 2016, pertaining to one
G.Mohanasundaram.
4. According to the claimants, on 29.10.2015, at about 8.45 p.m., the
claimant in M.C.O.P. No. 238 of 2016, namely, Mr.M.Jeganathan, was riding a
motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-31-BZ-5497 at his extreme left hand
side of the Cuddalore to Chidambaram Road at Sankolikuppam. At that time,
the first respondent's tractor bearing Registration No.KA-28-TA-7243 came in
the opposite direction at high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and hit
against the motorcycle and the claimant in M.C.O.P. No. 239 of 2016, namely,
Mr.G.Mohanasundaram was travelling as a pillion rider. Due to the accident,
both claimants sustained grievous injuries all over their bodies.
5. The first respondent was called absent and set ex parte before the
Tribunal. The second respondent / Insurance Company filed a counter
statement, wherein it has been stated that they denied the manner of the
accident. It was also contended that the driver of the first respondent's vehicle
was not possessing a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle at
the time of the accident and that such act amounted to a violation of the terms
Page 3 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:56:16 pm )

CMA Nos. 210 & 211 of 2020
and conditions of the policy. Therefore, the second respondent contended that it
was not liable to pay compensation to the claimants.
6. Since both the claim petitions arose out of one and the same accident, a
joint trial was conducted by the Tribunal and the findings were recorded in
M.C.O.P. No. 238 of 2016.
7. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimants, the claimant in
M.C.O.P.No.238 of 2016 was examined as P.W.1 and the claimant in
M.C.O.P.No.239 of 2016 was examined as P.W.2. Exs. P1 to P10 were marked.
The Disability Certificates were marked as Exs. C1 and C2. On the side of the
second respondent, R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and Exs. R1 to R3 were
marked.
8. Upon appreciation of the evidence adduced on either side, the Tribunal
found that a criminal case had been registered against the driver of the tractor.
The manner of the accident was also clearly deposed to by P.W.1 and P.W.2.
Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that the accident had occurred due to the
rash and negligent act of the driver of the tractor.
9. With regard to the quantum of compensation in M.C.O.P.No.238 of
2016, the Tribunal awarded compensation under various heads as hereunder:
Page 4 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:56:16 pm )

CMA Nos. 210 & 211 of 2020
Sl.No. Heads Amount granted by the Tribunal
(Rs.)
1 Partial permanent disability
Rs.18,000/-
(Rs.3000 x 6)
2 Extra Nourishment Rs.10,000/-
3 Special Diet / Extra
Rs.10,000/-
Nourishment
4 Transport Rs.10,000/-
5 Pain and Suffering Rs.50,000/-
6 Attendant Charge Rs.10,000/-
7 Loss of Income during the
Rs.20,000/-
treatment Period
8 Loss of Amounts Rs.10,000/-
Total Rs.1,38,000/-
Deduction 20% Rs.1,10,400/-
10. Aggrieved over the same, the Insurance Company preferred
C.M.A.No.210 of 2020, challenging the negligence fixed on its part.
11. With regard to the quantum of compensation in M.C.O.P.No.239 of
2016, the Tribunal awarded compensation under various heads as hereunder:
Sl.No. Heads Amount granted by the Tribunal
(Rs.)
1 Partial permanent disability
Rs.42,000/-
(Rs.3000 x 14)
2 Extra Nourishment Rs.20,000/-
3 Special Diet / Extra
Rs.10,000/-
Nourishment
4 Transport Rs.10,000/-
5 Pain and Suffering Rs.70,000/-
6 Attendant Charge Rs.10,000/-
7 Loss of Income during the
Rs.10,000/-
treatment Period
8 Loss of Amounts Rs.10,000/-
9 Medical Bills (Ex.P9) Rs.30,000/-
Total Rs.2,12,000/-
Deduction 20% Rs.1,69,600/-
Page 5 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:56:16 pm )

CMA Nos. 210 & 211 of 2020
12. Aggrieved over the same, the Insurance Company preferred
C.M.A.No.211 of 2020, challenging the negligence fixed on its part.
13. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant / Insurance Company
would submit that the Tribunal erred in not framing a specific issue with regard
to triple riding and the claimants travelling under the influence of alcohol. The
Tribunal also failed to consider the fact that, at the time of the accident, the
driver of the tractor did not have a valid and effective driving licence. The
Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence of R.W.1 and R.W.2 and Ex. R1 to
infer that the driver of the tractor was not responsible for the accident. In the
absence of any independent witness examined on the side of the first
respondent, the Tribunal ought not to have relied upon the F.I.R., which was
closed as a mistake of fact and the interested testimony of the claimants.
14. The learned counsel would further submit that the appellant /
Insurance Company had sent notices to the owner of the vehicle as well as the
driver of the tractor. The same had been clearly established through Exs. R1 and
R2 and therefore, the appellant / Insurance Company was not liable to
indemnify the claim.
15. Despite service of notice and effecting paper publication, the
claimants have not chosen to appear either in person or through counsel before
Page 6 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:56:16 pm )

CMA Nos. 210 & 211 of 2020
this Court. The owner of the vehicle has also not chosen to appear either in
person or through counsel before this Court.
16. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing for the appellant / Insurance company and perused the
records carefully.
17. According to the claimants, on 29.10.2015, at about 8.45 p.m., the
claimant in M.C.O.P.No.238 of 2016, namely Mr.M.Jeganathan, was riding the
motorcycle, and the other claimant, namely, Mr.G.Mohanasundaram was
travelling as a pillion rider. They were proceeding on the left side of the
Cuddalore to Chidambaram Road at Sankolikuppam. At that time, the first
respondent's tractor bearing Registration No.KA-28-TA-7243 came in the
opposite direction at high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and hit the
motorcycle, due to which the claimants sustained grievous injuries.
18. The claimants themselves were examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2,
respectively and they deposed about the manner of the accident. During the
course of cross-examination of P.W.1 and P.W.2, nothing was elicited against
their evidence. It is also relevant to note that a criminal case had been registered
against the driver of the tractor. A perusal of Ex. P1, shows that the manner in
which the accident occurred has been narrated in detail.
Page 7 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:56:16 pm )

CMA Nos. 210 & 211 of 2020
19. According to the appellant / Insurance Company, the first
respondent's vehicle, namely, the tractor, was driven by its driver without a
valid and effective driving licence. In order to prove the above said facts, the
appellant relied upon Ex. R2, the notice sent to the owner of the vehicle, who is
the first respondent and Ex. R3, the notice sent to the driver of the vehicle.
20. A perusal of Ex. R2 shows that a legal notice was issued by the
counsel on behalf of the Insurance Company dated 12.12.2017 and addressed to
the owner of the vehicle. However, only a xerox copy of the postal receipt was
placed along with Ex. R2 and there is no proof of acknowledgment was filed.
21. A perusal of Ex. R3 shows that the counsel sent a notice dated
12.12.2017 to the driver of the tractor, namely, Promoth Kumar Gupta. Iis also
seen that the notice sent to the driver of the tractor under Ex. R3 was returned
with the endorsement “No Such Addressee”.
22. The Insurance Company has not chosen to examine any official from
the concerned Regional Transport Office to substantiate its contention that, at
the time of the accident, the driver of the tractor was not possessing a valid and
effective driving licence. In the absence of the examination of an official from
the Regional Transport Office and in the absence of proof of acknowledgment
Page 8 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:56:16 pm )

CMA Nos. 210 & 211 of 2020
establishing that the notice was duly served on the owner of the tractor, the
contention of the appellant that the driver of the tractor did not have a valid and
effective driving licence at the time of the accident is not acceptable one.
23. With regard to the other contention raised by the appellant that the
claimants were travelling on the motorcycle under the influence of alcohol and
that three persons were travelling on the motorcycle at the time of the accident,
it is seen from Ex. R1, a copy of the charge sheet, that it has been stated therein
that three persons had travelled on the motorcycle at the time of the accident.
The criminal case was closed as a mistake of fact. Mere filing of a charge sheet
alone is not sufficient to substantiate the fact that three persons had travelled on
the motorcycle at the time of the accident, in the absence of the examination of
any reliable witness.
24. A perusal of Ex. P4, the Accident Register issued by the Government
Headquarters Hospital, Cuddalore, in respect of the claimant in
M.C.O.P.No.238 of 2016, wherein it has been mentioned therein that the person
had travelled on a motorcycle under the influence of alcohol. A perusal of
Ex.P6, the Accident Register issued by the Government Headquarters Hospital,
Cuddalore in respect of the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.238 of 2016, shows that it
has been mentioned therein that the alleged accident took place while the person
was travelling on a two-wheeler under the influence of alcohol.
Page 9 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:56:16 pm )

CMA Nos. 210 & 211 of 2020
25. Mere mentioning of the influence of alcohol in the Accident Register
report alone is not sufficient to substantiate the contention of the appellant that
the claimants had travelled under the influence of alcohol, in the absence of any
other supporting evidence.
26. This Court is of the view that, upon appreciation of the evidence
adduced on either side, the Tribunal rightly concluded that the accident occurred
only due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the tractor.
27. With regard to the quantum of compensation awarded in
M.C.O.P.No.238 of 2016, considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the
claimant and the permanent disability assessed at 6% by the Medical Board, the
Tribunal fixed Rs.3,000/- per percentage of disability and accordingly awarded
Rs.18,000/- under the head of permanent disability. The compensation awarded
under the other heads appears to be reasonable and proper and does not require
any interference.
28. Considering the fact that the claimants had travelled on the
motorcycle under the influence of alcohol, the Tribunal has rightly fixed 20%
contributory negligence on the part of the claimants, which does not warrants
interference by this Court.
Page 10 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:56:16 pm )

CMA Nos. 210 & 211 of 2020
29. With regard to the quantum of compensation awarded in
M.C.O.P.No.239 of 2016, the Tribunal considered the permanent disability,
assessed at 14% by the Medical Board, fixed Rs.3,000/- per percentage of
disability and accordingly awarded Rs.42,000/- under the head of permanent
disability.
30. The compensation awarded under the heads of extra nourishment,
transport expenses, pain and suffering, attendant charges and loss of income
during the treatment period appears to be reasonable and proper and does not
require any interference.
31. In the light of the above discussion, there is no merit in these appeals,
and the same are dismissed. The common award passed by the Tribunal is
hereby confirmed and the contributory negligence of 20% is also confirmed.
The appellant / Insurance Company, is directed to deposit the entire award
amount fixed by the Tribunal in the respective claim petitions, along with
interest and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of
six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, to the credit of
MCOP.No.238 of 2016 and MCOP.No.239 of 2016 respectively on the file of
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Judge/Special Sub Judge, Cuddalore. On
such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the award amount along
Page 11 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:56:16 pm )

CMA Nos. 210 & 211 of 2020
with interest and costs, less the amount, if any, already withdrawn, by making
proper application before the Tribunal. The other directions issued by the
Tribunal with regard to the mode of payment of compensation remains
unaltered. The manner and mode of disbursement of compensation shall be as
per the order of the Tribunal. However, it is made clear that the claimants are
not entitled for interest for the period of delay, if any, as ordered by this Court
earlier. The claimants are directed to pay the necessary Court fee, if any, on the
enhanced compensation. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed.
28-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
kak
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Special Sub Court, Cuddalore.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R.Section, High Court,
Madras.
Page 12 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:56:16 pm )

CMA Nos. 210 & 211 of 2020
M.JOTHIRAMAN J.
kak
CMA Nos. 210 & 211 of 2020
28-10-2026
Page 13 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:56:16 pm )