UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD vs KOKILA VANI
- Court
- Madras High Court
C.M.A.No.779 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.09.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
C.M.A.No.779 of 2021
and
C.M.P.No.4643 of 2021
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Branch Manager
No.104-A Ranga Building,
Peramanur Main Roads,
Near Four Roads, Salem - 636 007. ... Appellant
Vs.
1. Kokila Vani
2. Minor A.Megavarnan
3. Minor A.Mythili
4. Rangamma
5. C.Krishnan
6. Silambarasan
7. C.Rajamanickam
8. National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Branch Manager,
S.R.Complex, Rajamani Tottam,
Salem Bhavani Main Road,
Sankagiri - 637 301. ... Respondents
th
(7 Respondent herein remained exparte before the lower court,
notice may be dispensed with)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 01:24:30 pm )
C.M.A.No.779 of 2021
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the decree and judgment passed in
M.C.O.P.No.200 of 2016 on 03.07.2019 on the file of the Learned Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge), Hosur.
For Appellant : Mr.J.Chandran
For R1 to R4 : Mr.T.L.Thirumalaisamy
For R5 : Mr.G.M.Anantha Kumar
ORDER
The unsuccessful insurance company has preferred this appeal,
challenging the award dated 03.07.2019 passed by the Learned Additional
District Judge (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Hosur, in M.C.O.P.No.200
of 2016.
2. Respondents 1 to 5 are the claimants in M.C.O.P.No.200 of 2016.
st nd rd
The 1 claimant is the wife, the 2 claimant is the minor son, the 3 claimant
th th
is the minor daughter, the 4 claimant is the mother, and the 5 claimant is
the father of the deceased (Athipathi Rangan). The claim petition was filed
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation for the
death of Athipathi Rangan, who died in a road accident on 18.05.2016.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 01:24:30 pm )
C.M.A.No.779 of 2021
3. According to the claimants (respondents 1 to 5 herein), on
17.05.2016, after loading plants into an Eicher Van bearing Registration
th
No.TN-24-AD-9460 belonging to the 6 respondent and insured with the
appellant herein, the deceased was travelling in the vehicle to deliver plants
to the customers. The driver was operating the Eicher Van at a moderate
th
speed in compliance with traffic rules. Specifically, the 6 respondent was
driving on the left side of the road by applying dim and dip of the head light.
At about 03.03 hours on 18.05.2016, the driver was driving the Eicher Van
carefully near Semmandai Rountana near Ponni Fabrics on the Salem-Karur
road. At that moment, a lorry (bearing Registration No.TN-30-R-3767)
th th
belonging to the 7 respondent and insured with the 8 respondent, was
parked on the highway. It is submitted that the lorry was parked dangerously
without parking lights or any other cautionary indicators. Furthermore, no
warning items such as thorns, stones, leaves, branches, or fires were placed
around it to alert oncoming traffic. Due to the lack of these indicators, the
lorry appeared to be a moving vehicle. As previously stated, the driver of the
Eicher Van was traveling at a moderate speed. He did not anticipate that the
lorry was stationary until he was close to it. Upon realizing the lorry was
parked, he applied the brakes suddenly. Despite his efforts, he had no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 01:24:30 pm )
C.M.A.No.779 of 2021
alternative but to collide with the rear side of the parked lorry. Due to the
sudden impact, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot.
th
4. The 6 respondent filed a counter-statement before the Court below,
th
wherein it has been stated that the 6 respondent was the driver and owner of
the Eicher Van bearing Registration No.TN-24-AD-9460. On 17.05.2016, the
deceased (Athipathirangan) traveled in his vehicle to deliver plants to a
customer. The Eicher Van was being driven at a moderate speed in
th
compliance with traffic rules. While the 6 respondent was driving carefully
on the left side of the road with the headlights on a low beam (dim and dip),
on 18.05.2016 at about 03.30 hours, near Semmandai Roundana, near Ponni
Fabrics on the Salem-Karur Road, a lorry bearing Registration No.TN-30-
th th
R-3767 (belonging to the 7 respondent and insured with the 8 respondent)
was parked on the highway. It was asserted that the lorry was parked
dangerously without any parking lights, cautions signs, or indicators.
th
Assuming the lorry was moving, the 6 respondent did not anticipate that it
was stationary. Upon suddenly realizing the lorry was parked on the road, the
th
6 respondent immediately applied the brakes. Despite this, he had no
alternative and collided with the rear side of the parked lorry. Due to the
sudden impact, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. It
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 01:24:30 pm )
C.M.A.No.779 of 2021
has been stated that the accident occurred solely due to the lorry being parked
th
on the highway. Consequently, the 6 respondent prayed for the dismissal of
the petition.
5. The appellant/insurance company also filed a counter-statement
before the Court below, wherein the appellant denied the manner of the
accident and their liability for compensation. They stated that the deceased
had traveled as an unauthorized passenger in violation of policy conditions.
Furthermore, they asserted that the accident was caused solely by the
negligence of the driver of the lorry (Registration No.TN-30-R-3767), who
had parked the vehicle dangerously on the highway without lights. The
appellant also alleged that the Vangal police colluded with the lorry driver to
file a false FIR against the driver of the Eicher Van. Finally, the appellant
stated that neither the Eicher Van driver nor the lorry driver possessed a valid
driving license at the time of the accident, which constituted a further
violation of the policy conditions.
th
6. The 8 respondent/insurance company also filed a counter-
statement, denying both the manner of the accident and liability for
compensation. They stated that there was no negligence on the part of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 01:24:30 pm )
C.M.A.No.779 of 2021
lorry driver, who had parked the vehicle (Registration No.TN-30-R-3767) on
the left side of the road, leaving sufficient space for other passing vehicles.
They further stated that the alleged accident occurred due to the sole
th
negligence of the 6 respondent, who drove his Eicher Van in a careless and
th
negligent manner, subsequently dashing into the parked lorry. The 8
respondent further stated that the accident would not have occurred had the
driver of the Eicher Van exercised proper care by driving at a moderate speed
during the night hours.
7. Before the Tribunal, the deceased’s wife, Kokila vani, was examined
as PW1 on behalf of the claimants. Exs.P1 to P24 were marked on their
behalf. On behalf of the respondents, the driver of the Eicher Van was
examined as RW1, while one Nagaraj was examined as RW2, and Exs.R1
and R2 were marked.
8. The learned Tribunal, on appreciating the evidence adduced by both
th
sides, held that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 6
respondent, who drove the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-24-AD-9460.
th
The 6 respondent had deposed in his cross examination that the deceased
(Athipathi Rangan) had traveled in his vehicle on 17.05.2016 to deliver plants
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 01:24:30 pm )
C.M.A.No.779 of 2021
to a customer, when the vehicle was nearing Semmandai Rountana near
Ponni Fabrics on the Salem-Karur Road at about 03.03 hours on 18.05.2016,
th
the 6 respondent noticed a lorry bearing Registration No.TN-30-R-3767,
which was parked on the highway road without any parking lights or any
other caution. He had not anticipated that the lorry was parked. On seeing the
lorry was parked, he had applied sudden brake. In spite of this, he hit onto the
rear side of the lorry, causing the accident.
th
9. The RW2, who examined on the side of the 8 respondent/insurance
th
company, had stated that the 7 respondent, who drove the lorry (Registration
No.TN-30-R-3767) near Semmadai Roundana and parked on the left side of
the road to attend a phone call. At that time, the driver of the offending
vehicle (Registration No.TN-24-AD-9460) drove the same in a rash and
negligent manner with the deceased occupant and hit against the parked lorry
th
and caused the accident. The FIR was also registered against the 6
respondent. Therefore, the appellant/insurance company is liable to pay
th th th
compensation on behalf of the 6 respondent. The 7 and 8 respondents are
not liable to pay compensation to the claimants. Conversely, according to
RW1, the owner-cum-driver of the offending eicher van (Registration
No.TN-24-AD-9460), the accident occurred due to the negligence of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 01:24:30 pm )
C.M.A.No.779 of 2021
drivers of both vehicles, making them jointly liable. Considering the evidence
of both RW1 and RW2, the Tribunal has concluded that the negligent on the
th th
part of the 6 respondent was 75% and the negligent on the part of the 7
respondent was 25%.
10. Although the claimants contended that the deceased was employed
as a Senior Site Supervisor at Indian Hi-Tech Horticulture Solutions Private
Limited, earning a monthly salary of not less than Rs.20,000/-, they failed to
examine the appropriate authority that issued the salary certificate to
substantiate the claim. In the absence of the examination of a competent
witness to depose regarding the issuance and validity of the salary certificate,
the learned Tribunal fixed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.13,000/-
per month.
th
11. Considering the number of dependents, the Tribunal deducted 1/4
of the income (Rs.3250/-) towards personal and living expenses of the
deceased, thereby arriving at an annual income of Rs.1,17,000/- [(Rs.13000-
Rs.3250) x12]. Applying the multiplier of “15” in accordance with the
principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi
Transport Corporation, the Tribunal assessed the loss of dependency at
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 01:24:30 pm )
C.M.A.No.779 of 2021
Rs.17,55,000/- (Rs.1,17,000x15). Furthermore, regarding the addition of
income towards future prospectus, and keeping in view the age of the
deceased at the time of the accident, the Tribunal added 40% for future
prospects in line with the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi. This amounted to
Rs.7,02,000/- (40% of 17,55,000). Consequently, the Tribunal awarded
compensation under various conventional and non-conventional heads as
detailed below:
S.No. Heads Rs.
1. Loss of dependency 17,55,000/-
2. Loss of love and affection 20,000
3. Transportation 10,000
4. Funeral Expenses 15,000
5. Loss of estate 7,200
6. Loss of consortium 40,000
7. Loss of future prospects 7,02,000
Total 25,49,200
12. Aggrieved by the above compensation, the appellant (insurer of the
th
6 respondent’s vehicle) has preferred this appeal before this Court,
th
challenging the apportionment of 75% negligence on the part of the 6
respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 01:24:30 pm )
C.M.A.No.779 of 2021
13. The learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company would
submit that the learned Tribunal ought to have held that the accident occurred
due to the negligence of the lorry driver, who failed to exercise proper care
and caution by not deploying danger indication lights. Specifically, the lorry
(Registration No.TN-30-R-3767) was parked on the highway at 03:30 hours
without any warning signals, hazard lights, or surrounding markers such as
thorns, stones, leaves, or branches. Consequently, the driver of the van
(Registration No.TN-24-AD-9460) could not have anticipated the parked
lorry and, despite braking suddenly, had no alternative but to collide with the
rear of the lorry, resulting in death of the deceased.
14. The learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company would
further submit that the learned Tribunal ought to have concluded that the FIR
was wrongly filed by the lorry driver against the driver of the Eicher van to
escape liability, taking advantage of the fact that the occupant of the Eicher
van was hospitalized with severe injuries and subsequently succumbed to
those injuries. Consequently, The learned Tribunal ought to have held that the
driver of the lorry was the sole cause of the accident, and the entire liability
should have been fixed upon them.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 01:24:30 pm )
C.M.A.No.779 of 2021
15. The learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company would
further submit that the learned Tribunal erroneously fixed 75% liability
against the driver of the Eicher van and directed the appellant herein to pay
and indemnify the compensation to the claimants. The learned counsel would
also submit that the Tribunal went wrong in awarding compensation by fixing
the notional income at Rs.13,000/- per month and adding 40% towards future
prospects. Furthermore, the learned counsel would submit that the learned
Tribunal ought to have fixed 50% negligence on the part of the owner of the
lorry, and that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and
unsupported by any material evidence.
th
16. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 8
respondent/insurance company would submit that upon proper appreciation
of the evidence adduced by both sides, the learned Tribunal rightly
considered the evidence of RW1 and RW2 along with Ex.P1 (FIR).
th
Consequently, the Tribunal correctly attributed 75% negligence to the 6
respondent (the driver-cum-owner of the Eicher van) and 25% negligence to
th
the 7 respondent (the owner of the lorry). Furthermore, the learned Tribunal
fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.13,000/- only after carefully
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 01:24:30 pm )
C.M.A.No.779 of 2021
considering Ex.P12 (the salary certificate). Since the amounts awarded under
both conventional and non-conventional heads are also just and proper, the
award does not warrant any interference.
17. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel for both sides and have carefully perused the records.
18. According to the claimants, on 17.05.2016, the deceased was
th
traveling in an Eicher Van (belonging to the 6 respondent) to deliver plants.
At approximately 03.03 hours on 18.05.2016, while the van was being driven
carefully and at a moderate speed along the Salem-Karur Road near
Semmandai Roundana, it collided with the rear side of a parked lorry
th
(belonging to the 7 respondent). The lorry was parked dangerously on the
highway without parking lights, warning indicators, or reflective objects,
making it appear to be moving. Due to the lack of visibility, the van driver
could not anticipate the stationary vehicle and, despite applying sudden
brakes, was unable to avoid the fatal collision, resulting in the deceased's spot
death.
19. The driver of the Eicher van, Silambarasan, was examined as RW1.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 01:24:30 pm )
C.M.A.No.779 of 2021
He deposed that he is the driver and owner of the Eicher van, and that the
deceased had traveled in his vehicle to deliver plants to a customer on
17.05.2016. He further deposed that while he was driving the van on the left
side of the road at about 03.03 hours on 18.05.2016, and was nearing the
Semmandai Rountana near Ponni Fabrics on the Salem-Karur Road, a lorry
bearing Registration No.TN-30-R-3767 was parked on the highway. No
thorns, stones, leaves, branches, or warning signs were placed around the
lorry, which was parked dangerously without any parking lights or other
cautionary indicators. He further deposed that the parked lorry appeared to be
a moving vehicle, and he had not anticipated that it was stationary. Upon
realizing the lorry was parked in the road, he suddenly applied the brakes. In
spite of this, he hit the rear side of the parked lorry. Due to the sudden
impact, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot.
20. According to the appellant herein, the accident occurred solely due
to the negligence of the lorry driver. The driver had stationed the lorry on the
highway without placing any traffic cones, warning hazards, or branches
nearby to indicate that the vehicle was parked on the road. Furthermore, the
appellant stated that the lorry was parked dangerously, without parking lights
or any other caution or indication. Therefore, the entire liability has to be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 01:24:30 pm )
C.M.A.No.779 of 2021
fixed upon the driver of the parked lorry.
th
21. One Nagaraj, Assistant Manager of the 8 respondent/insurance
company (the insurer of the offending lorry), was examined as RW2. He
marked Ex.R1 (Insurance Policy) pertaining to the lorry bearing Registration
No.TN-30-R-3767. He also marked Ex.R2 (Batta Memo) to show that the
driver of the lorry was summoned to depose evidence. This was done to
establish that the lorry was parked on the left side of the road, leaving
sufficient space for other passing vehicles, and that the accident occurred
th
solely due to the negligence of the 6 respondent, who drove the eicher lorry
in a careless and negligent manner and, in the process, dashed into the parked
lorry.
22. The learned Tribunal considered the evidence of RW1, RW2 and
Ex.R2. The learned Tribunal also took into account Ex.P5 (the driving license
of the van driver) and Ex.P9 (the driving license of the lorry driver), which
showed that the drivers of both vehicles held valid driving licenses at the time
of the accident. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the accident
occurred due to the rash and negligent acts of both the Eicher van driver and
the lorry driver, and accordingly apportioned contributory negligence at 75%
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 01:24:30 pm )
C.M.A.No.779 of 2021
on the part of the Eicher van driver and 25% on the part of the lorry driver.
23. This Court is of the considered view that, based on the evidence of
RW1 and the contents of Ex.P1 (FIR), the accident clearly occurred due to
the rash and negligent act of the driver of the Eicher van. Consequently, the
decision of the Tribunal to fix contributory negligence at 75% on the Eicher
van driver and 25% on the lorry driver is well-founded and does not require
any further analysis.
24. With regard to the quantum of compensation, Ex.P11 (death
certificate) and Ex.P2 (postmortem certificate) show the age of the deceased
as 38 years. Although the claimants stated that the deceased was working as a
Senior Site Supervisor at Indian Hi-Tech Horticulture Solutions Private
Limited and earning not less than Rs.20,000/- per month, and additionally
placed on record Ex.P12 (salary certificate) stating the same, the employer or
the competent person who issued the certificate was not examined. Therefore,
in the absence of such examination, the learned Tribunal rightly fixed the
monthly income of the deceased at Rs.13,000/- per month.
25. Furthermore, considering the number of dependents, the Tribunal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 01:24:30 pm )
C.M.A.No.779 of 2021
correctly deducted 1/4 of the income (Rs.3250) towards the personal and
living expenses of the deceased. Accordingly, the annual income of the
deceased was arrived at Rs.1,17,000/- (Rs.13000-Rs.3250=Rs.9750x12).
Since the deceased was 38 years old at the time of the accident, the Tribunal
properly applied a multiplier of 15, following the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the Sarla verma case and awarded a sum of
Rs.17,55,000/- (Rs.1,17,000x15) towards loss of dependency. This award is
reasonable and proper; therefore, it does not require any interference. The
compensation awarded under the other conventional and non-conventional
heads is also found to be proper. Consequently, this Court does not find any
merit in the appeal challenging the 75:25 apportionment of contributory
negligence attributed to the driver of the Eicher van and the lorry driver,
respectively.
26. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. The
appellant is directed to deposit 75% of the compensation amount
(Rs.19,11,900) as arrived at by the Tribunal to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.200
of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional
District Judge), Hosur, within a period of six weeks from today. Any amount
already deposited shall be adjusted towards the said amount. The claimants
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 01:24:30 pm )
C.M.A.No.779 of 2021
are permitted to withdraw the said amount by filing a proper application
before the Court below. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
17.09.2026
raja
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
To
1. The Additional District Judge (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal),
Hosur.
2. The Branch Manager,
National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
S.R.Complex, Rajamani Tottam,
Salem Bhavani Main Road,
Sankagiri - 637 301.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 01:24:30 pm )
C.M.A.No.779 of 2021
M.JOTHIRAMAN , J.
raja
C.M.A.No.779 of 2021
17.09.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 01:24:30 pm )
C.M.A.No.779 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
CMA No. 779 of 2021
CNR: {HCMA010076852020}
United India Insurance Company Limited,
Rep.by its Branch Manager,
No. 104-A, Ranga Building,
Peramanur Main Roads,
Near Four Roads,
Salem-636 007.
..Appellant(s)
Vs
1. Kokila Vani
2. Minor A.Megavarnan
3. Minor A.Mythili
4. Rangamma
5. C.Krishnan
6. Silambarasan
7. C.Rajamanickam
8. National Insurance Co.Ltd
Rep.by its Branch Manager,
S.R.Complex, Rajamani Tottam,
Salem Bhavani Main Road, Sankagiri-637 301.
..Respondent(s)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 01:24:30 pm )
C.M.A.No.779 of 2021
For Appellant(s): Mr.J.Chandran
For Respondent(s): Mr.T.L.Thirumalaisamy
for R1 to R4
Mr.G.M.Anantha Kumar for R5
Mrs.R.Sreevidhya for R8
O R D E R
The matter is listed today under the caption “for being mentioned”.
2. Though the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company was
dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 17.09.2026, in the operative
portion of the judgment in paragraph No.26, due to inadvertence, payment of
interest for the compensation awarded was omitted in the judgment.
3. In the light of the above, paragraph No.26 of the judgment dated
17.09.2026 is replaced as hereunder:-
“26. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is
dismissed. The appellant is directed to deposit 75% of the
compensation amount (Rs.19,11,900/-) as arrived at by the
Tribunal, along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of
filing of claim petition till the date of deposit to the credit of
M.C.O.P.No.200 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 01:24:30 pm )
C.M.A.No.779 of 2021
Tribunal (Additional District Judge), Hosur, within a period of six
weeks from today. Any amount already deposited shall be adjusted
towards the said amount. The claimants are permitted to withdraw
the said amount by filing a proper application before the Court
below. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.”
4. Registry is directed to carry out the above correction in the
judgment dated 17.09.2026 and issue fresh order copy to the parties.
28-10-2026
ssb
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Additional District Court, Hosur.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R. Section,
High Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 01:24:30 pm )
C.M.A.No.779 of 2021
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
ssb
CMA No. 779 of 2021
28-10-2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 01:24:30 pm )