Inun Jariya vs E.Panner Selvam

Court
Madras High Court

CMA No. 1863 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
CMA No. 1863 of 2022
CNR: {HCMA011253372022}
1. Inun Jariya
2. Rokka Bi
..Appellant(s)
Vs
1. E.Panner Selvam
2. M/s.United India Insurance Company Limited
70, N.S.C.Bose Road, Chennai 600 079.
3. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd
H-Block, 4th Street, Door No.H2035,
th
15 Main Road, Anna Nagar West,
Chennai 600 040
..Respondent(s)
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, praying to allow the CMA and set aside the award passed by the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Judge / Principal District Judge, Perambalur,
by its decree and Judgment dated 28/03/2022 and made in M.C.O.P.No.
787/2015.
For Appellant(s): Mr.A.Prabhu Saravana
For Respondent(s): R1 – Notice Not ready
For R2 - Mr.J.Chandran
For R3 – Mr.P.Suresh Srinivasan
__________
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 01:33:17 pm )

CMA No. 1863 of 2022
JUDGMENT
For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to herein by their
respective ranks before the Tribunal.
2. The unsuccessful claimants have preferred the present appeal, seeking
enhancement of compensation. The claim petition was filed under Section 166
of the Motor Vehicles Act [hereinafter referred to as ‘the MV Act’], seeking
compensation for the death of one Manjur Ali, who died in a road accident.
3. The first claimant is the wife, and the second claimant is the mother of
the deceased.
4. According to the claimants, on 08.06.2015, at about 07.00 hours, the
deceased was riding his Hero Honda motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN 46
L 6225 and attempted to cross the road from north towards south in the
Perambalur Bypass Road at Alambadi road junction. At that time, a lorry
bearing Registration No.TN 04 AH 9896 driven by its driver in a rash and
negligent manner from east towards west, dashed against the deceased’s
motorcycle and caused the accident. Due to the accident, the deceased was
thrown out from the motorcycle, sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot.
__________
Page 2 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 01:33:17 pm )

CMA No. 1863 of 2022
5. According to the claimants, taking advantage of the death of the
deceased, the first respondent’s driver gave a false complaint and a criminal
case was registered against the deceased.
6. The first respondent is the owner of the lorry, the second respondent is
the insurer of the lorry and the third respondent is the insurer of the Hero Honda
motorcycle. Therefore, the claimants contended that the respondents were
jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.
7. The first respondent was called absent and set ex parte before the
Tribunal.
8. The second respondent/Insurance Company has filed a counter
statement, wherein it was stated that the deceased had suddenly crossed the
main road junction and dashed against the lorry and that he was solely
responsible for the accident.
9. The third respondent/Insurance Company also filed a counter
statement, wherein they denied the manner of the accident. It was contended
that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry
driver and that a FIR has been falsely registered against the deceased. Hence,
__________
Page 3 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 01:33:17 pm )

CMA No. 1863 of 2022
the claimants contended that they were entitled to seek compensation against
respondents 1 and 2.
10. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimants, the second claimant
herself was examined as P.W.1, Mrs.Karthikayini was examined as P.W.2, and
Mr.Anandhbabu was examined as P.W.3. Exs.P1 to P20 and Exs.X1 to X4,
Ex.X7 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 and R.W.2 were
examined and Exs.X5, X6, X8 and Ex.R1 were marked.
11. Upon appreciation of the evidence adduced on either side, the
Tribunal found that the claimants had not chosen to examine any eyewitness to
prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the first respondent’s lorry.
12. The Tribunal observed that the right-side body of the lorry alone was
damaged. The rough sketch marked as Ex.X6, which shows that the accident
occurred when the deceased was riding his motorcycle from north to south and
the lorry was travelling from west to east. The scene of occurrence was shown
in the middle of the four road junction on the eastern side.
__________
Page 4 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 01:33:17 pm )

CMA No. 1863 of 2022
13. In the absence of any independent witness on the side of the claimants
to establish the manner of the accident, the Tribunal concluded that the accident
occurred solely due to the negligent riding of the deceased.
14. The Tribunal also found that the Insurance Company of the
deceased’s two-wheeler had been impleaded as the third respondent and that the
policy was a package policy. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the claimants
were entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards personal accident coverage and
directed the third respondent to pay the said amount to the claimants and
accordingly, the claim petition was dismissed as against respondents 1 and 2.
15. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants have preferred the present
appeal, challenging the finding of negligence fixed on the deceased.
16. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants would
submit that the Tribunal failed to consider the negligent act of the first
respondent’s driver and also failed to consider the evidence of P.W.2 and
P.W.3.
17. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Insurance
Company would submit that, upon appreciation of the evidence adduced on
either side, the Tribunal rightly concluded that the accident occurred solely due
__________
Page 5 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 01:33:17 pm )

CMA No. 1863 of 2022
to the rash and negligent act of the deceased. The Tribunal also rightly
concluded that the Insurance Company of the deceased’s two-wheeler alone was
liable to pay compensation under the package policy and correctly awarded a
sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of personal accident coverage.
18. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing on either side and perused the records carefully.
19. According to the claimants, on 08.06.2015, at about 07.00 hours, the
deceased was riding his motorcycle and attempted to cross the road from north
towards south on Perambalur Bypass Road. At that time, the driver of the first
respondent’s lorry, travelling from east to west in a rash and negligent manner,
dashed against the deceased’s motorcycle and caused the accident.
20. In order to prove the manner of the accident, it is relevant to note that
the claimants have not chosen to examine any independent eyewitness.
Admittedly, P.W.1 is not an eyewitness.
21. A perusal of Ex.P1/FIR and Ex.X5/final report shows that a criminal
case was registered against the deceased and that the final report was filed
referring the case on the ground that the accident occurred due to the rash and
negligent riding of the deceased.
__________
Page 6 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 01:33:17 pm )

CMA No. 1863 of 2022
22. A perusal of Exs.X3 and X4, the motor vehicle inspection reports,
reveals that the right-side body of the lorry alone was damaged. A perusal of
Ex.X6, the rough sketch, reveals that the scene of occurrence was shown in the
middle of the four-road junction of the eastern side.
23. It is relevant to note that the claimants have not chosen to examine
any eyewitness to prove that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent’s lorry.
24. A perusal of Ex.P19, the copy of the certificate-cum-policy schedule
relating to the third respondent’s vehicle bearing Registration No. TN 46 L
6225, shows that it is a package policy. It is not in dispute that the deceased was
the owner-cum-rider of the two-wheeler.
25. In such circumstances, considering the nature of the policy, this Court
is of the considered opinion that the claimants are entitled to personal accident
coverage of Rs.1,00,000/- and that the third respondent is liable to pay the said
compensation to the claimants.
26. In the absence of independent eyewitnesses on the side of the
claimants to establish negligence on the part of the driver of the offending
__________
Page 7 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 01:33:17 pm )

CMA No. 1863 of 2022
vehicle, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Tribunal rightly
concluded that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent act of
the deceased. The Tribunal also rightly held that the claimants were entitled to
personal accident coverage of Rs.1,00,000/- under the package policy and
dismissed the claim petition as against respondents 1 and 2, while directing the
third respondent/Insurance Company to pay the said amount.
27. The findings of the Tribunal do not warrant any interference by this
Court.
28. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. The award
passed by the Tribunal, directing the third respondent/Insurance Company to
pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards personal accident coverage is confirmed.
The third respondent/ Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
compensation amount towards personal accident coverage along with interest
and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of six (6)
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, to the credit of
MCOP.No.787 of 2015 on the file of the Hon’ble Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Perambalur. On such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw
the amount, along with interest and costs, less the amount, if any, already
withdrawn, as per the apportionment fixed by the Tribunal by making proper
application before the Tribunal. The other directions issued by the Tribunal with
__________
Page 8 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 01:33:17 pm )

CMA No. 1863 of 2022
regard to the mode of payment of compensation remains unaltered. The manner
and mode of disbursement of compensation shall be as per the order of the
Tribunal. No costs.
27-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
kak
To
1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Judge
/ Principal District Judge,
Perambalur.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.
__________
Page 9 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 01:33:17 pm )

CMA No. 1863 of 2022
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
kak
CMA No. 1863 of 2022
27-10-2026
__________
Page 10 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 01:33:17 pm )