M/s.United India Insurance C vs Pathandi,

Court
Madras High Court

CMA(MD) No. 926 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 26-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJNISH PATHIYIL
CMA(MD) No. 926 of 2023
CNR:{HCMD010405432023}
and CMP(MD).No.13049 of 2023
M/s.United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Through its Branch Manager,
No. 903/1, Tenkasi Madurai Main Road, Near
Panchayat Union Office, Kadayanallur,
Kadayanallur Taluk, Tirunelveli District.
..Appellant(s)
Vs
1. Pathandi,
W/o. Nixcon, No. 95/84, Chairman street,
Thirikoodapuram, Chokkampatti Village,
Kadayanallur Taluk,
Tirunelveli District.
2. Nixcon,
S/o. Peter, No. 95/84, Chairman street,
Thirikoodapuram, chokkampatti village,
Kadayanallur taluk, Tirunelveli District.
3. Mr. Manoj,
S/o. Nixcon, No. 95/84, Chairman street,
Thirikoodapuram, chokkampatti village,
Kadayanallur taluk, Tirunelveli District.
4. Murugesan,
S/o. Arumuga Nadar, No. 11/8/45, (old D.No.
3/8/44), 8th street, Surandai village, V.K. Pudur
Taluk, Tirunelveli District.
5. Mariselvam,
S/o. Arumuga Nadar, No. 11/8/45, (old D.No.
__________
Page  1  of  10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 02:24:55 pm )

CMA(MD) No. 926 of 2023
3/8/44), 8th street, Surandai village, V.K. Pudur
Taluk, Tirunelveli District.
(Notice to 4th and 5th Respondents is given up as
no relief is claimed against them)
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of
Motor Vehicle Act, to allow this Memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous
Petition against the order and decree dated 07.01.2023 made in MCOP
No. 117 of 2019 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Additional District Judge (FTC)), Tenkasi.
For Appellant(s): Mr.B.Rajesh Saravanan
For Respondent(s): Mr.Dhilipan Pandian R L
For R1 To R3
R4 And R5 - Given Up
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by Abdul Quddhose J.)
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed challenging the
impugned award dated 07.01.2023 passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Additional District Judge (FTC)), Tenkasi in MCOP.No.117 of
2019.
2. The appellant / Insurance Company has been directed to pay
compensation of Rs.25,08,900/- to the respondents / claimants by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge (FTC)),
Tenkasi, under the impugned award, dated 07.01.2023 passed in
MCOP.No.117 of 2019 as detailed hereunder:
__________
Page  2  of  10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 02:24:55 pm )

CMA(MD) No. 926 of 2023
Heads Amount
Loss of Dependency Rs.27,21,600/-
Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/-
Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/-
Loss of Love and Affection Rs.2,00,000/-
Rs.29,51,600/-
Less : Contributory Negligence at
Rs.29,51,600-Rs.4,42,740/-
15%
=Rs.25,08,860/-
Total Rs.25,08,860
Rounded off to Rs.25,08,900/-
3. The appellant / Insurance Company has challenged the
impugned award on the following grounds:
a. The contributory negligence fixed on the part of the deceased at
15% by the Tribunal is less and it has to be enhanced. According to the
appellant, only due to the fault of the deceased (rider of the motor-cycle),
the accident had happened, which resulted in his death.
b. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that
due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the deceased, by over-
taking a stationary vehicle and dashing against the vehicle insured with
the appellant, he had died and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have fixed
the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased at a higher
__________
Page  3  of  10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 02:24:55 pm )

CMA(MD) No. 926 of 2023
percentage. The appellant / Insurance Company has also questioned the
quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the respondents /
claimants in this appeal.
c. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant drew the
attention of this Court to the impugned award and would submit that the
Tribunal has erroneously fixed the contributory negligence of the
deceased only at 15%, even though the deceased was alone responsible
for the accident. He would submit that only based on the Motor Vehicle
Inspector’s report, the Tribunal has erroneously fixed the contributory
negligence of the deceased at 15%, which according to him, is incorrect.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents / claimants
would submit that only based on the evidence of eye-witness to the
accident, who was examined as P.W.3, the Tribunal has fixed the
contributory negligence of the deceased at 15%, which is correct. He
would submit that there is no contra evidence produced by the appellant /
Insurance Company to disprove the finding rendered by the Tribunal
under the impugned award.
__________
Page  4  of  10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 02:24:55 pm )

CMA(MD) No. 926 of 2023
5. We have carefully considered the submissions made on either
side and the materials available on record, which were placed before the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
6. At the time of the accident, the deceased was in an unconscious
state of mind and therefore, he could not have been in a position to lodge
a complaint with the concerned Police against the driver of the offending
vehicle (insured vehicle). The appellant / Insurance Company cannot rely
upon an FIR registered based on a complaint given by the driver of the
insured vehicle. The FIR registered earlier was also dropped, as seen
from the final report filed by the Police, in view of the death of the
deceased due to the accident. The respondents / claimants had examined
an independent eye-witness to the accident, namely, Periasamy, who
deposed that the driver of the insured vehicle was alone responsible for
the cause of the accident, which resulted in the death of the deceased.
The eye-witness to the accident was grazing his goats near the scene of
the accident. There is no contra evidence produced by the appellant /
Insurance Company before the Tribunal to disprove the statement of the
eye-witness to the accident.
7. The sketch with regard to the accident was also not produced by
the appellant / Insurance Company before the Tribunal. The Police
__________
Page  5  of  10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 02:24:55 pm )

CMA(MD) No. 926 of 2023
Official, who was examined as R.W.1, on behalf of the appellant /
Insurance Company, also did not produce the sketch before the Tribunal.
The driver of the insured vehicle was also not examined by the appellant
as a witness to support the case of the appellant / Insurance Company that
the insured vehicle was not responsible for the cause of the accident. The
Tribunal has rightly taken into consideration the fact that the deceased
was not wearing a helmet and was not possessing a driving license at the
time of the accident and on that basis, fixed contributory negligence at
15% on the part of the deceased. The question of enhancing the same by
this Court to a higher percentage does not arise as there is no evidence
placed on record by the appellant / Insurance Company to disprove the
statement of the respondents as deposed before the Tribunal. Any claim
before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is adjudicated based on the
principle of preponderance of probabilities and being a beneficial
legislation, the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation to the
respondents / claimants for a sum of Rs.25,08,900/- in accordance with
various decisions rendered by the Constitutional Courts which includes
the decisions in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi
and Sarala Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation.
__________
Page  6  of  10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 02:24:55 pm )

CMA(MD) No. 926 of 2023
8. The Tribunal has rightly adopted the correct multiplier for
arriving at the loss of dependency. The notional income fixed by the
Tribunal at Rs.18,000/- per month for an accident that happened in the
year 2018 cannot be considered to be unreasonable and unjustified. The
deceased, who was supposed to be working as a Mechanic, would have
certainly earned a sum of Rs.18,000/- per month in the year 2018.
Therefore, the contention of the appellant that the notional income fixed
by the Tribunal for the deceased at Rs.18,000/- per month is unjustified
cannot be accepted by this Court. The over-all compensation awarded by
the Tribunal to the respondents / claimants at Rs.25,08,900/- is just and
reasonable and cannot be interfered with by this Court.
9. We do not find any infirmity in the impugned award passed by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Court (FTC)),
FTC, Tenkasi in MCOP No. 117 of 2019 dated 07.01.2023. Therefore,
this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed.
10. The appellant / Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
entire award amount, if not already deposited together with accrued
interests and costs, before the Tribunal in MCOP.No.117 of 2019, within
a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
__________
Page  7  of  10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 02:24:55 pm )

CMA(MD) No. 926 of 2023
The respondents / claimants are permitted to withdraw the same as
apportioned by the Tribunal by filing an appropriate application before
the Tribunal. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
(A.Q.,J.) (R.P.L.,J.)
26-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
TSG
__________
Page  8  of  10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 02:24:55 pm )

CMA(MD) No. 926 of 2023
To
The (Additional District Judge (FTC),
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tenkasi.
__________
Page  9  of  10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 02:24:55 pm )

CMA(MD) No. 926 of 2023
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
AND
RAJNISH PATHIYIL, J.
TSG
CMA(MD) No. 926 of 2023
26-10-2026
__________
Page  10  of  10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 02:24:55 pm )