M/S.NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD vs SOUNDARAM
- Court
- Madras High Court
CMA(MD) No. 660 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on 24.09.2026
Pronounced on 02.11.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN
CMA(MD) No. 660 of 2020
CNR:{HCMD010510472020}
AND
CMA(MD) No. 661 of 2020, CMA(MD) No. 662 of 2020, and
CMP(MD) No. 6661 of 2020, CMP(MD) No. 6658 of 2020,
CMP(MD) No. 6665 of 2020
CMA(MD) No. 660 of 2020
M/s.National Insurance Co. Ltd
Door No.63, Rasi Plaza, West Pirathaksinam Road,
Karur, Karur Taluk, Karur District.
..Appellant(s)
Vs
1. Soundaram
2. The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
Coimbatore Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director,
CBE Ltd, Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore.
3. Manoharan
..Respondent(s)
CMA(MD) No. 661 of 2020
M/s.National Insurance Co.Ltd.,
Door No.63, Rasi Plaza, West Pirathaksinam Road,
Karur, Karur Taluk, Karur District.
..Appellant(s)
Vs
1. Manimegalai
__________
Page 1 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 09:58:58 pm )
CMA(MD) No. 660 of 2020
2. The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
Coimbatore Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director,
CBE Ltd, Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore.
3. Manoharan
..Respondent(s)
CMA(MD) No. 662 of 2020
M/s.National Insurance Co. Ltd
Door No.63, Rasi Plaza, West Pirathaksinam Road,
Karur, Karur Taluk, Karur District.
..Appellant(s)
Vs
1. Ayyasamy
2. Easwaran(DIED)
3. Krishnambal
4. Minor Pravin Kumar
5. Minor Kishor Kumar
(4 and 5 Minor Rep.by natural guardian 3
respondent Krishnambal)
6. Durairaj
7. The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
Coimbatore Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director,
CBE Ltd, Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore.
8. Manoharan
9. Easwari,
10.Banu Priya,
( Respondents 9 and 10 are brought on record as
LRs of the deceased 2nd Respondent vide court
order dated 01.04.2026 made in
CMP(MD)No.13184 of 2025 in CMA(MD)No.662
of 2020)
..Respondent(s)
__________
Page 2 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 09:58:58 pm )
CMA(MD) No. 660 of 2020
PRAYER in CMA(MD) No. 660 of 2020 : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
has been filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, to set aside the
fair and decreetal order dated 30.09.2019 made in MCOP No.101 of 2019
on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District and
Sessions Judge), Karur and allow this appeal.
PRAYER in CMA(MD) No. 661 of 2020 : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
has been filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, to set aside the
fair and decreetal order dated 30.09.2019 made in MCOP No.102 of 2019
on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District and
Sessions Judge), Karur and allow this appeal.
PRAYER in CMA(MD) No. 662 of 2020 : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
has been filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, to set aside the
fair and decreetal order dated 30.09.2019 made in MCOP No.103 of 2019
on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District and
Sessions Judge), Karur and allow this appeal.
CMA(MD) Nos. 660 and 661 of 2020
For Appellant(s): Mr.V.Sakthivel
For Respondent(s): Mr.K.Sudalaiyandi for R1
Mr.P.Prabhakaran for R2
No Appearance for R3
CMA(MD) No. 662 of 2020
For Appellant(s) : Mr.V.Sakthivel
For Respondent(s) : Mr.K.Sudalaiyandi for R1, R3 to
R6, R9 & R10
Mr.P.Prabhakaran for R7
R2 - Died
No Appearance for R8
__________
Page 3 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 09:58:58 pm )
CMA(MD) No. 660 of 2020
COMMON JUDGMENT
The third respondent before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
in the respective M.C.O.Ps proceedings, in MCOP Nos.101, 102 and 103
of 2019 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional
District & Sessions Judge, Karur, have preferred these present Civil
Miscellaneous Appeals, challenging the common award dated
30.09.2019.
2.Facts of the case:
2.1.The claimants in the respective M.C.O.Ps. were travelling as
passengers in a State Transport Corporation bus bearing Registration
No.TN-33-N-2583. On 18.09.2016, while the bus was proceeding on the
Karur–Coimbatore Main Road, the driver of the bus attempted to
overtake a vehicle proceeding ahead. In the course of such overtaking, the
bus collided with a tipper lorry bearing Registration No. TN-28-AL-9903,
insured with the appellant-Insurance Company. In the accident, several
passengers sustained injuries and some of them died.
2.2.The injured persons and the legal representatives of the
deceased filed separate claim petitions, impleading the Managing
Director of Transport Corporation, owner of Lorry and the said vehicle
insured with appellant/Insurance Company, as parties respectively.
2.3.The appellant-Insurance Company filed its counter disputing
__________
Page 4 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 09:58:58 pm )
CMA(MD) No. 660 of 2020
the manner of the accident and contending that the accident occurred due
to the rash and negligent driving of the Transport Corporation bus.
According to the Insurance Company, while attempting to overtake the
vehicle proceeding ahead, the bus entered the extreme portion of the road
meant for the oncoming traffic and collided with the tipper lorry. It was
therefore contended that the driver of the tipper lorry was not negligent
and that the Insurance Company was not liable to satisfy the
compensation. The quantum of compensation claimed in the respective
claim petitions was also disputed.
2.4.The Transport Corporation also filed its counter contending that
the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the
tipper lorry driver. According to the Transport Corporation, there was no
negligence on the part of its bus driver and, therefore, the Transport
Corporation was not liable. The quantum claimed in the respective
petitions was also disputed.
2.5.Before the Tribunal, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.P1 to
P13 were marked, on the side of the claimants. On the side of the
respondents, the conductor of the Transport Corporation bus was
examined as R.W.1
3.Findings of the Tribunal:
3.1.Upon appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence,
__________
Page 5 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 09:58:58 pm )
CMA(MD) No. 660 of 2020
the Tribunal found that both the vehicles had contributed to the
occurrence and apportioned the negligence at 80% on the Transport
Corporation bus and 20% on the tipper lorry, insured with appellant
Insurance Company. The Tribunal accordingly awarded compensation in
the respective claim petitions by the common award dated 30.09.2019.
(i)MCOP No.101 of 2019:-
Sl. Awarded Amount
Heads
No.
in Rs.
Partially Permanent
1 1,65,000/-
Disability (55%)
2 Loss of Income 21,000/-
3 Pain and Suffering 30,000/-
4 Transportation Charges 10,000/-
5 Nourishment expenses 25,000/-
6 Medical expenses 1,15,300/-
7 Future medical expenses 25,000/-
Total Compensation Awarded Rs.3,91,300/-
(ii)MCOP No.102 of 2019:-
Sl. Awarded Amount
Heads
No.
in Rs.
Temporary Amenities,
Damages to cloth and
articles
1
25,000/-
2 Loss of Income 16,000/-
3 Pain and Suffering 10,000/-
4 Transportation Charges 10,000/-
5 Nourishment expenses 10,000/-
__________
Page 6 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 09:58:58 pm )
CMA(MD) No. 660 of 2020
Sl. Awarded Amount
Heads
No.
in Rs.
6 Medical expenses 8,490/-
Total Compensation Awarded Rs.79,490/-
(iii)MCOP No.103 of 2019:-
Sl. Awarded Amount
Heads
No.
in Rs.
1 Loss of Income 4,41,000/-
2 Loss of Estate 15,000/-
3 Funeral expenses 15,000/-
4 Loss of Love and
Affection
1,80,000/-
Total Compensation Awarded Rs.6,51,000/-
3.2.Aggrieved by the said common award, the Insurance Company
have preferred these present appeals, principally challenging the finding
fixing 20% negligence on the driver of the tipper lorry. The quantum of
compensation was not seriously challenged.
4.Discussion of the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/Insurance Company:
4.1.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance
Company submitted that the finding of 20% negligence on the tipper
lorry is contrary to the pleadings and the evidence. According to the
learned counsel, the pleadings themselves disclose that the Transport
__________
Page 7 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 09:58:58 pm )
CMA(MD) No. 660 of 2020
Corporation bus, while attempting to overtake the vehicle proceeding
ahead, dashed against the tipper lorry. Therefore, the entire negligence
ought to have been attributed to the bus driver and no negligence could
have been fastened upon the tipper lorry driver.
5.Discussion of the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent/Transport Corporation:
5.1.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the Transport
Corporation submitted that the Tribunal had correctly appreciated the
evidence. According to him, the tipper lorry driver, who was proceeding
in the opposite direction, had sufficient opportunity to avoid the accident
after noticing the bus attempting to overtake the vehicle. He could have
reduced the speed or moved towards the left side of the road and thereby
avoided the collision. Since the lorry driver failed to avail such
opportunity, the Tribunal was justified in fixing 20% negligence on him.
6.This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the
entire records.
7.The following question arises for consideration:
(i)Whether the Tribunal was justified in fixing 20% negligence on
the driver of the tipper lorry, in addition to 80% negligence on the driver
of the Transport Corporation bus?
__________
Page 8 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 09:58:58 pm )
CMA(MD) No. 660 of 2020
8.Discussion on negligence and Findings:
8.1.This Court carefully considered the evidence of the injured
witnesses, the First Information Report, the other contemporaneous
materials and the sketch available on record.
8.2.It is true that the driver of the Transport Corporation bus was
not examined before the Tribunal. However, the conductor of the bus was
examined. More importantly, the evidence of the injured witnesses and
the other materials on record provide sufficient evidence regarding the
manner in which the accident occurred.
8.3.The materials on record establish that the Transport
Corporation bus was in the process of overtaking a vehicle proceeding
ahead. When a vehicle is attempting to overtake another vehicle, the
driver of an oncoming vehicle also has a equal duty to exercise
reasonable care and take appropriate steps to avoid a collision if the
circumstances so permit.
8.4.The present case is therefore not one in which the negligence of
the bus driver alone has to be examined in isolation. The relevant
question is whether the driver of the tipper lorry, on noticing the bus
entering the portion of the road while overtaking, had an opportunity to
avoid the collision.
8.5.The evidence indicates that the lorry driver could have reduced
__________
Page 9 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 09:58:58 pm )
CMA(MD) No. 660 of 2020
the speed and, if reasonably possible, moved further towards the left side
of the road. The sketch also indicates that sufficient space was available
on the left side of the road for avoiding the collision. However, the lorry
driver did not take such steps.
8.6.This is therefore a case where the “last opportunity to avoid the
collision” was available, to some extent, to the driver of the tipper lorry
as well. The fact that the bus was overtaking the vehicle proceeding
ahead does not, by itself, absolve the driver of the oncoming lorry from
the duty to take reasonable steps to avoid the collision when the danger
became apparent. At the same time, the principal negligence remains
attributable to the Transport Corporation bus, since it was the bus which
entered the lane of the oncoming lorry while attempting to overtake
another vehicle.
8.7.Having regard to the totality of the evidence, including the
testimony of the injured witnesses, the documentary evidence and the
sketch, this Court finds that the learned Tribunal Judge has appropriately
apportioned the negligence at 80% on the Transport Corporation bus and
20% on the tipper lorry insured with appellant Insurance Company. The
contention of the appellant-Insurance Company that no negligence
whatsoever can be attributed to the tipper lorry driver cannot therefore be
accepted. The absence of examination of the lorry driver, by itself, does
__________
Page 10 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 09:58:58 pm )
CMA(MD) No. 660 of 2020
not warrant interference with the finding of the Tribunal when the other
evidence on record supports the finding of contributory negligence.
8.8.Accordingly, this Court finds no error in the appreciation of
evidence by the Tribunal or in the apportionment of negligence in the
ratio of “80:20”.
8.9.Since the quantum of compensation has not been seriously
challenged before this Court, the quantum fixed in the common award
dated 30.09.2019 is liable to be confirmed.
9.Result:
9.1.In the result, these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed .
9.2.The common award dated 30.09.2019 passed by the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Additional District & Sessions Judge,
Karur, in the respective M.C.O.P. Nos.101,102 and 103 of 2019 are
hereby confirmed.
9.3.If both the appellant-Insurance Company and Transport
Corporation already deposited the award amount in view of the orders
passed by the trial court, the respective claimants and proforma
respondents are entitled to withdraw the amount in accordance with the
apportionment made by the Tribunal.
9.4.If any amount remains to be deposited, both the appellant-
Insurance Company and Transport Corporation shall deposit the same,
__________
Page 11 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 09:58:58 pm )
CMA(MD) No. 660 of 2020
after giving credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within a period
of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected
Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
02.11.2026
NCC :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
AKM
To
1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District and
Sessions Judge), Karur.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
__________
Page 12 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 09:58:58 pm )
CMA(MD) No. 660 of 2020
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J.
AKM
CMA(MD) No. 660 of 2020
AND
CMA(MD) No. 661 of 2020, CMA(MD) No. 662 of 2020,
CMP(MD) No. 6661 of 2020, CMP(MD) No. 6658 of 2020,
CMP(MD) No. 6665 of 2020
Dated: 02.11.2026
__________
Page 13 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 09:58:58 pm )