M/S.NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD vs S.RAJESWARI

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved On 27.08.2026
Pronounced On 02.11.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
C.M.A.(MD).No.89 of 2018
and
C.M.P.(MD).No.1344 of 2018
M/s.National Insurance Co.Ltd.,
Rep.by its Manager,
No.3 Anna Nagar,
80 Feet Road, Madurai.
... Appellant
Vs.
1.S.Rajeswari
2.Minor S.Jeevithan
nd st
( 2 Minor respondent rep by his mother and natural guardian the 1
respondent Tmt.Rajeswari )
3.O.Paulsamy
4.P.Ramuthai
5.K.Pitchumani
6.K.Gopalakrishnan (died)
7.M/s.Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
Rep.through its Divisional Manager,
No.39/40, Workshop Road,
Saradha Shopping Centre,
Simmakkal, Madurai.
1/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:16:57 pm )

8.Varalakshmi
9.Chitra
10.Vanitha
11.G.Dinesh ... Respondents
th
(Respondent Nos.8 to 11 are brought on record as Lrs of the deceased 6
respondent vide Court order dated 19.08.2026 made in C.M.P.(MD).Nos.615
to 617 of 2020 in C.M.A.(MD).No.89 of 2018)
PRAYER:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicle Act, 1988 to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 28.07.2017
made in M.C.O.P.No.2781 of 2015 on the file of Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (V Additional District Judge), Madurai.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Jerin Mathew
For Respondents : Mr.J.Sankara Pandian for
Mr.G.Ganesh Babu for R1 to R4
: Mr.C.Jawahar Ravindran for R7
: No appearance for R5
: R6-Died.
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
2/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:16:57 pm )

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
3/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:16:57 pm )

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
4/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:16:57 pm )

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.
1 Transportation Charges 5,000/-
2 Damages caused to
clothes and Cell Phone
1,000/-
3 Loss of Love and
Affection
2,20,000/-
4 Mental Shock ------
st
5 Consortium to the 1
1,00,000/-
petitioner
6 Funeral Expenses 20,000/-
7 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:
5/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:16:57 pm )

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.
6/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:16:57 pm )

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.
7/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:16:57 pm )

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:
8/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:16:57 pm )

(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.
9/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:16:57 pm )

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.
10/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:16:57 pm )

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/-
11/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:16:57 pm )

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
Status
this Court
1 Transportatio
n
5,000/- 5,000/- Confirmed
2 Damages to
clothes and
articles
1,000/- 1,000/- Confirmed
3 Loss of love
and affection
2,20,000/- 1,20,000/- Reduced
4 Consortium 1,00,000/- 40,000/- Reduced
5 Funeral
Expenses
20,000/- 20,000/- Confirmed
6 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
12/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:16:57 pm )

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.
13/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:16:57 pm )

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.
14/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:16:57 pm )

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.
15/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:16:57 pm )

K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J.
sbn
C.M.A.(MD).No.89 of 2018
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:16:57 pm )