THE BRANCH MANAGER vs PANNEERE @ PANNEERSELVAM

CMA(MD) No. 485 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved On 23.09.2026
Pronounced On 02.11.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
CMA(MD) No. 485 of 2018
{CNR: HCMD010931572018}
Case QR
CMP(MD) No. 5742 of 2018
The Branch Manager,
M/s.Chola Mandalam General Insurance Company Ltd.,
2nd Floor, Dare House,
No.2, N.S.C. Bose Road,
Chennai. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Panneere @ Panneerselvam
2.Karunanithi ... Respondents
PRAYER:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicle Act, 1988, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 22.01.2018
made in M.C.O.P. No.833 of 2015 on the file on Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal-cum-Special Sub Court, Thanjavur.
For Appellant : Mrs.K.R.Shiva Shankari
For Respondents : Mr.B.Jameel Arasu for R1
: No Appearance for R2
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:20:40 pm )

CMA(MD) No. 485 of 2018
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:
2/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:20:40 pm )

CMA(MD) No. 485 of 2018
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.
3/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:20:40 pm )

CMA(MD) No. 485 of 2018
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.
1 Partial Permanent
Disability
90,000/-
2 Pain and Sufferings 1,00,000/-
3 Loss of amenities 50,000/-
4 Loss of expectation of
life
50,000/-
4/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:20:40 pm )

CMA(MD) No. 485 of 2018
5 Medical expenses -----
6 Extra Nourishment 10,000/-
7 Attendant Charges 5,000/-
8 Transportation
expenses
10,000/-
9 Loss of Income 24,000/-
Total Compensation Awarded Rs.3,39,000/-
5/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:20:40 pm )

CMA(MD) No. 485 of 2018
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:
6/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:20:40 pm )

CMA(MD) No. 485 of 2018
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.
7/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:20:40 pm )

CMA(MD) No. 485 of 2018
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.
8/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:20:40 pm )

CMA(MD) No. 485 of 2018
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.
9/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:20:40 pm )

CMA(MD) No. 485 of 2018
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
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
1.The
The Special Sub Court, Thanjavur.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
10/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:20:40 pm )

K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J.
aas
C.M.A.(MD).No.485 of 2018
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:20:40 pm )