National Insurance Company Ltd, vs Poovathal

Court
Madras High Court

CMA No. 1517 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
CMA No. 1517 of 2022
CNR:{HCMA010036572022}
AND
CMP NO. 11257 OF 2022,
CMP NO. 11256 OF 2022
National Insurance Company Ltd,
Divisional Office, 1st Floor, No.18, Court Street,
Kumaran Road Cornor, Tiruppur-641 601.
..Appellant(s)
Vs.
1. Poovathal
2. P. Ramesh
3. P.Prakash
4. D. Sivaperumal
5. S.Balusamy ..Respondent(s)
Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the Decree and Judgment passed in MACT
OP.No.2250 of 2018, dated 21.10.2021, on the file of the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Chief Officer, Tiruppur.
For Appellant(s) : Mrs.N.B.Sureka
For R1 to R5 : No Appearance.
JUDGMENT
Unsuccessful appellant/Insurance Company has preferred the present
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the negligence and the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
__________
Page1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:36:10 pm )

CMA No. 1517 of 2022
2. The first claimant is the wife, and the second and third claimants are
the children of the deceased Palanisamy. They have filed claim petition under
Section 166(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the death of Palanisamy, who
died in a road accident.
3. According to the claimants, on 08.09.2018 at about 2.00 p.m. the
deceased was riding his motorcycle bearing Registration No. TN 39 BF 0376 on
Vijayapuram Road infront of TNEB Office, proceeding from south to north. At
that time, a crane bearing Registration No. TN 39 BM 6873, driven by the first
respondent from east to west in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle,
resulting in fatal injuries to the deceased. The claimants further contended that
the deceased was running a fruit shop and working as a security guard, earning
a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month.
4. The Insurance Company filed a counter statement disputing the manner
of the accident. It was further contended that the driver of the offending vehicle
and the deceased did not possess valid and effective driving licences to drive
their respective vehicles and that the vehicles were not roadworthy. It was also
alleged that the driver had violated Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, thereby
committing an offence punishable under Section 181 of the Act. On these
grounds, the Insurance Company contended that it was not liable to pay
compensation to the claimants.
__________
Page2 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:36:10 pm )

CMA No. 1517 of 2022
5. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimants, the first claimant was
examined as P.W.1, and Exs.P1 to P10 were marked. On behalf of the third
respondent/ Insurance Company, no witness was examined and Ex.R1 was
marked.

6. Upon appreciation of the evidence adduced on either side, the Tribunal
held that the accident had occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving
of the driver of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal further found that the
offending vehicle was insured with the third respondent Insurance Company
and that the driver possessed an effective driving licence at the time of the
accident. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that there was no violation of the
policy conditions and that the deceased was a third party and the claimants are
entitled to compensation from the respondents concerned. With regard to the
quantum of compensation, the Tribunal fixed the notional income of the
deceased at Rs.12,500/- added 10% towards future prospects, and deducted one-
third of his income towards personal and living expenses. The Tribunal also
awarded compensation under the head “loss of consortium” and also under
various other conventional heads, as detailed hereunder :-
__________
Page3 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:36:10 pm )

CMA No. 1517 of 2022
S.No. Heads of Compensation Amount awarded by
the Tribunal
1 Loss of income Rs.12,14,044/-/-
2 Loss of consortium Rs. 40,000/-
3 Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-
4 Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/-
Total Rs.12,80,044/-
7. Aggrieved over the same, the Insurance Company has preferred the
present appeal.
8. During the pendency of this appeal, the appellant/insurance company
has filed CMP.No.11257 of 2022 in CMA.No.1517 of 2022 to receive the
Insurance Policy, Driving licence of the fourth respondent and the Registration
Certificate of the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 39 BM 6873 as additional
evidence.
9. In the affidavit, the third respondent has stated that the driver
possessed a driving licence to drive a light motor vehicle from 27.10.2020 .
The vehicle involved in the accident had weighed 9,800/- there it is more than
the prescribed limit for light motor vehicle. The insured has not produced the
driving particulars to Motor Vehicle Inspector or to the insurer. In order to
establish the case of the appellant, the insurance policy, driving licence and the
__________
Page4 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:36:10 pm )

CMA No. 1517 of 2022
Registration Certificate of the vehicle are necessary and the same has to be
produced in this appeal.
10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant Insurance Company
would submit that the Tribunal failed to consider the discrepancy in the name of
the driver of the offending vehicle. It was pointed out that the driver's name was
mentioned as Sivaprabhu in one document, whereas it was mentioned as
Sivaperumal in the charge sheet and other documents. There was no record to
indicate that the police had treated the discrepancy as a typographical error. It
was further contended that the Tribunal had misdirected itself in fastening
liability upon the appellant and had failed to appreciate that the driver of the
crane bearing Registration No. TN 39 BM 6873 did not possess a valid driving
licence at the time of the accident. Therefore, the learned counsel contended that
the appellant was not liable to pay compensation to the claimants. The learned
counsel would further submit that the tribunal had failed to consider that the
driver possessed a licence to drive a light motor vehicle but did not possess a
valid licence to drive the vehicle involved in the alleged accident. The crane
involved in the accident had an unladen weight of 9800 kgs. Therefore, as on
the date of accident i.e. on 08.09.2018, the driver did not possess a valid driving
licence to drive a heavy vehicle.

__________
Page5 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:36:10 pm )

CMA No. 1517 of 2022
11.Despite service of notice on the respondents and their names have
been printed in the daily cause list, none appeared on behalf of the
respondents/claimants and the owner of the vehicle.
12. This Court considered the submission made by the learned counsel for
the appellant and perused the materials available on record.
13. It is seen from the records that the appellant herein in its counter
statement contended that the first respondent did not possess a valid and
effective driving licence to drive the vehicle at the time of accident and that,
therefore, the appellant herein is not liable to pay compensation to the
claimants.
14. It is also seen from the records that on behalf of the claimants, Ex.P6,
a copy of the driving licence pertaining to the driver of the offending vehicle,
was marked through P.W.1. During the cross-examination of P.W.1, nothing
was elicited to discredit the evidence relating to the driving licence of the driver
of the offending vehicle.
15. It is relevant to note that though the appellant/ Insurance Company
categorically contended that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a
valid driving licence at the time of accident, it did not take any steps to
__________
Page6 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:36:10 pm )

CMA No. 1517 of 2022
examine an official from the concerned Regional Transport Office or any other
independent witness to substantiate its contention. In the absence of such
evidence, the mere raising of an objection in the counter statement is sufficient
to establish that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid
driving licence at the time of the accident.
16. On a perusal of the records, it is seen that Ex. P5, the Motor Vehicle
Inspection report, contains a reference to the non-production of the driving
licence for inspection. However, the mere non-production of the driving licence
before the Motor Vehicle Inspector is not, by itself, sufficient to establish that
the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving
licence at the time of the accident. Ex.P.6 pertains to the driver of the offending
vehicle and also considering Ex.P.6 along with Ex.P5 - Motor Vehicle
Inspection Report, this Court is of the view that the appellant herein failed to
establish the that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid
driving licence at the time of accident.
17. It is relevant to note that the appellant herein has filed an application
under Order XLI Rule 27 of C.P.C to receive the insurance policy, the driving
licence of the fourth respondent, and the registration certificate of the offending
vehicle as the additional evidence. Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil
Procedure speaks about the party seeking to produce additional evidence,
__________
Page7 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:36:10 pm )

CMA No. 1517 of 2022
establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence
was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence,
be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed.
18. On a perusal of the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of
the application, this Court is of the view that the appellant has failed to satisfy
the conditions enumerated under Order XLI Rule 27 of C.P.C. for reception of
additional evidence. Therefore, the application seeking permission to produce
additional documents is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed.
19. A perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 shows that the wife of the
deceased, categorically admitted in her evidence that the deceased had sustained
injuries in the accident. As per Ex.P8 - Post-mortem certificate, the deceased
had suffered fractures of the skull and mandible. From the evidence of P.W.2
and Ex.P.8 - postmortem certificate, reveals that the deceased sustained head
injuries in the accident.
20. In the above circumstances, this Court is of the view that the deceased
died due to head injuries and therefore the appellant is justified in contending
that had the deceased worn a helmet, at the time of accident, the head injuries
could have been avoided or their severity could have been reduced.
Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the deceased has
__________
Page8 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:36:10 pm )

CMA No. 1517 of 2022
contributed to the extent of the injuries sustained by him, by failing to wear a
helmet, as mandated under the applicable Motor Accident Rules. Hence, 10%
contributory negligence is attributed to the deceased and the remaining 90% is
attributed to the driver of the offending vehicle.
21. There is no specific challenge to the quantum of compensation
awarded by the Tribunal. However, in view of the finding regarding
contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, the compensation awarded
by the Tribunal requires modification by deducting 10% towards contributory
negligence.
22. In view of the above, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
modified as hereunder :-
S.No. Heads of Compensation Amount awarded by
this Court
1 Loss of income (Rs.9,167x 12x11) Rs.12,14,044/-
2 Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-
3 Loss of consortium Rs. 40,000/-
4 Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/-
Total
Deduction of 10% for contributory
negligence
Compensation payable
Rs.12,80,044/-
Rs. 1,28,044/-
Rs.11,52,000/-
__________
Page9 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:36:10 pm )

CMA No. 1517 of 2022
23. In the result,
i) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed.
C.M.P.No.11257 of 2022 stands dismissed.
ii) The award passed by the Tribunal is modified by fixing
10% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased
for not wearing a helmet, thereby reducing the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal by 10% .
iii) The Compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reduced
from Rs.12,80,044/- to Rs.11,52,000/-.
iv) The appellant / Insurance Company is directed to deposit
the modified compensation amount i.e., Rs.11,52,000/-
together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from
the date of claim petition till the date of deposit to the
credit of M.C.O.P.No.2250 of 2018 on the file of the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Officer, Tiruppur,
(less amount already deposited if any) within a period of
six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
Judgment.
v) On such deposit being made, the respondents/claimants 1
to 3 are permitted to withdraw their share amount as
apportioned by the Tribunal, along with the interest and
__________
Page10 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:36:10 pm )

CMA No. 1517 of 2022
costs, after adjusting the amount, if any already
withdrawn, by filing necessary applications before the
Tribunal.
vi) The other directions issued by the Tribunal with regard to
the mode of payment of compensation remains unaltered.
vii) The manner and mode of disbursement of compensation
shall be as per the order of the Tribunal. There shall be no
order as to costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.11256
of 2022 is also closed.
08-10-2026
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
KKD
To
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Chief Officer, Tiruppur,
__________
Page11 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:36:10 pm )

CMA No. 1517 of 2022
M.JOTHIRAMAN J.
KKD
CMA No. 1517 of 2022
08-10-2026
__________
Page12 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:36:10 pm )