TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD vs P.AMMU

2026:MHC:2304
CMA No.1163 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03-06-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
CMA No.1163 of 2024
Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
2nd Floor, Samson Towers,
No.403L, Pantheon Road, Egmore,
Chennai - 08.
..Appellant(s)
Vs
1. P.Ammu
2. Minor S.P.A. Puviarasu
(Minor Rep. by her mother 1st petitioner)
3. Jayalakshmi
4. T.Chakkaravarthy
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER : To set aside the order dated 29th day of September 2023 made in
MCOP No.43 of 2020 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.1,
Special District Court, Thiruvallur.
For Appellant(s): Mr.Vinod K
For Respondent(s): Mr.C.K.Chandrasekkar
for Mr.R.Prabu
for RR1 TO 4
__________
Page1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/06/2026 04:32:23 pm )

2026:MHC:2304
CMA No.1163 of 2024
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.Rajasekar J.)
The insurance company, challenging the liability fixed on them to pay
compensation as per the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.43 of 2020 by Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal No.1- cum- Special District Court, Thiruvallur., dated
29.09.2023, has filed this appeal.
2. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as under :
The husband of the first respondent, namely, R.S.Pugazhenthi, while
riding a two wheeler bearing registration No.TN-21-BK-2873 on Minjur –
Vandalur Bypass Outer Ring Road on 31.12.2019, around 03.15 P.M., from
North to South near Morey Overbridge, hit a TATA Ace vehicle bearing
registration No.TN-75-J-4678 from behind, which was parked in the left side of
the road without any indication, as a result of which the said Pugazhenthi fell
down from the vehicle and sustained grievous injuries on his head and other
parts of the body and died on the spot. Immediately, one of the passersby called
ambulance and police, whereupon a criminal case was registered against the
driver of TATA Ace vehicle in Crime No.1641 of 2019 for offences under
Sections 283 and 304 (A) of the Indian Penal Code on the file of Poonamallee
Traffic Investigation Wing Police Station.
3. The petitioners 1 to 3 in M.C.O.P.No.43 of 2020, who are wife, minor
son, and mother of the deceased Pugazhenthi, filed the claim petition, claiming
__________
Page2 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/06/2026 04:32:23 pm )

2026:MHC:2304
CMA No.1163 of 2024
a compensation of Rs.25.00 crores for the death of the deceased. It was stated
that the deceased was a Scientist in ISRO, working at Vikram Sarabhai Space
Centre, Tiruvananthapuram, and was earning a sum of Rs.2,05,574/- per month.
It was also stated that due to the negligent parking of TATA Ace vehicle by its
driver/the first respondent in the petition, the accident occurred. The second
respondent in the petition was the insurer of TATA Ace vehicle. Hence, it was
claimed that both the respondents 1 and 2 in the petition were liable to pay
compensation.
4. During trial, on the side of claimants, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and
Exs.P-1 to P-33 were marked. On the side of respondents, R.Ws.1 to 3 were
examined and Exs.R-1 to R-10 were marked.
5. Before the Tribunal, the first respondent/driver of TATA Ace vehicle
remained ex parte. The second respondent/insurer contested the claim, mainly
on the ground that the deceased was responsible for the accident. It was also
contended that the deceased, without due care and caution, drove the two
wheeler at a high speed and dashed against the stationed vehicle. Further, it was
contended that the compensation awarded under various heads was also on
higher side.
6. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence placed on record, accepted
the case of the claimants that the driver/first respondent parked TATA Ace
vehicle in a negligent manner on the Outer Ring Road, which was the road
meant for fast travel. By so holding, the Tribunal awarded a sum of
__________
Page3 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/06/2026 04:32:23 pm )

2026:MHC:2304
CMA No.1163 of 2024
Rs.2,92,69,944/- along with interest towards compensation. It was also recorded
by the Tribunal that since there was no fitness certificate, pay and recovery was
ordered.
7. Aggrieved over the negligence fixed on the driver/first respondent by
the Tribunal, this appeal has been filed by the insurer, as stated above.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submitted that
they had examined the driver of TATA Ace vehicle as R.W.1 and his evidence
was not properly appreciated by the Tribunal. He would further submit that
R.W.1 narrated the entire occurrence and there was ample evidence to show that
though the driver of TATA Ace vehicle had parked the vehicle in the left side of
the road in broad day light and there was sufficient caution to other vehicles to
see the stationed vehicles, the deceased came on a two wheeler at high speed,
due to which he could not stop the vehicle and dashed the stationed vehicle on
rear side. The learned counsel also contended that P.W.2, who was alleged to
have witnessed the occurrence, had stated that the deceased had dashed against
the stationed vehicle. According to him, there was evidence to show that the
deceased had driven the vehicle at high speed and hence contributory
negligence was to be fixed on the deceased. The learned counsel also submitted
that the road was having 200 feet width and if there was no contributory
negligence, there could not be accident, which fact had also not been
appreciated by the Tribunal. Accordingly, he prayed to set aside the award
passed by the Tribunal.
__________
Page4 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/06/2026 04:32:23 pm )

2026:MHC:2304
CMA No.1163 of 2024
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants submitted
that P.W.2, who was present at the scene of occurrence, had deposed that he
only contacted ambulance and police for the purpose of intimating the accident.
The driver was not present at the time of occurrence and further the vehicle was
admittedly parked on the Outer Ring Road, on which vehicles usually driven at
high speed and it was also legally permissible to ride two wheelers at high speed
on the said road. Further, there was also ample evidence to show that the
accident had taken place while the vehicles were entering into an overbridge at
Out Ring Road. Though the road was having a width of 200 ft., the place where
TATA Ace vehicle was parked was on the third track, in which, usually, two
wheelers would ply. Since the vehicle was stopped at the entry point of the
overbridge, though the deceased had seen the vehicle, he could not be in a
position to stop the two wheeler, which resulted in the accident. This fact was
also properly appreciated by the tribunal. Accordingly, the learned counsel
prayed to confirm the award passed by the Tribunal.
10. We have gone through the records and considered the submissions
made on both sides.
11. Admittedly, on the side of claimants, an eye-witness to the
occurrence, namely, P.W.2 was examined. Similarly, on the side of insurer, the
driver of TATA Ace vehicle was examined as R.W.1. The evidence of P.W.2
reveals that he was a lorry driver and regular commuter. While he was travelling
on the Outer Ring Road i.e., Minjur-Vandalur Road on his two wheeler, he saw
__________
Page5 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/06/2026 04:32:23 pm )

2026:MHC:2304
CMA No.1163 of 2024
the deceased riding his two wheeler 100 mts. away, dashing against the parked
vehicle and falling down. Immediately, he, along with another person, rushed to
that place and attempted to lift the injured person. However, they found that the
injured suffered grievous injuries and was unconscious. Thereafter, he searched
the injured pocket, took out mobile phone and contacted the wife of the injured.
At the same time, he also contacted ambulance. Within 15 minutes, ambulance
came to the spot and it was reported that the deceased had died on the spot. He
also stated that TATA Ace vehicle was parked in a place where it was not
visible from distance, as the road was slopy. Only after going nearer the place
where TATA Ace vehicle was parked, the vehicle was visible. It was also stated
that the place of occurrence was an elevated area on the Outer Ring Road.
Similarly, the evidence of R.W.1 was also to the effect that since TATA Ace
vehicle had suffered breakdown near Morey overbridge, it was parked there by
him. He also deposed that he contacted vehicle mechanic and was waiting
there. At that point of time, many vehicles had commuted and crossed over the
parked vehicle. However, the deceased came on a two wheeler and dashed
against TATA Ace vehicle on rear side. Immediately, he also called police and
ambulance and helped to rescue the deceased. It was also admitted in his cross-
examination that the place of occurrence, namely, Morey was situated on an
elevated area and at the entry point of Minjur-Vandalur elevated road. He
denied that the vehicle could be seen only after reaching nearer to the parked
area. He also stated that many vehicles had crossed safely and he assisted the
__________
Page6 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/06/2026 04:32:23 pm )

2026:MHC:2304
CMA No.1163 of 2024
vehicles to move slowly to avoid accidents. The evidence of both these
witnesses was appreciated by the Tribunal.
12. We have also gone through the evidence and considered the
documents, such as Motor Vehicle Inspection Report, photographs produced to
show the place of occurrence, and the First Information Report, Ex.P-1.
13. Admittedly, the F.I.R. was registered immediately after the accident.
It was lodged by one of the lorry drivers, in which it was also stated that the
vehicle was parked on the left side of the road and that the deceased riding his
two wheeler and dashed against the rear side of the stationed vehicle, which
resulted in causing grievous injuries and subsequently it was revealed that the
deceased died on the spot. It was also an admitted fact that the place of
occurrence was Outer Ring Road, on which usually vehicles moved fast and it
was not like other roads, where regular traffic would commute. It was the road,
connecting larger extent and outskirts of the city urban areas. That road was
having three tracks. The extreme left side of the road was usually used by two
wheelers for safe commute and other two tracks used by large vehicles, such as,
cars, buses and other vehicles to commute at high speed.
14. Unfortunately, in this case, the TATA Ace vehicle was parked in the
area, where usually two wheelers would commute. Apart from that, it was also
an admitted case that the place where the vehicle was parked is an entry point of
the elevated road and it is slopy bridge. This means that vehicles, before
entering in the elevated area, may not easily see the parked vehicles. Though it
__________
Page7 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/06/2026 04:32:23 pm )

2026:MHC:2304
CMA No.1163 of 2024
was stated that the goods vehicle was parked in day time as stated above, the
visibility was not sufficient for other vehicles, which were entering in the
elevated corridor from the regular road. The evidence adduced by both sides
only supports the case of the claimants that TATA Ace vehicle was parked
dangerously in the two wheeler track.
15. The contention of the appellant/insurance company is that if the
deceased had driven the two wheeler at a lesser speed, he could have avoided
the accident. It is true that any vehicle coming with lesser speed can avoid
accidents. However, the place, where the accident occurred, was meant for
travel at high speed. With the expectation to drive fast, the deceased also might
have entered into the elevated corridor at such speed. This could not be
considered as a negligent act, because, all the vehicles entering into the Ring
Road, travelled at high speed. If any vehicle moved slowly, it would disturb the
regular traffic.
16. It is also to be noted that police had also investigated into the alleged
occurrence and a final report was also filed against the driver of TATA Ace
vehicle. There is also no rebuttal with regard to the criminal proceedings by the
driver of the vehicle, namely, R.W.1. In view of the same, the evidence adduced
on the side of the claimants shall be placed on a higher pedestal than that of the
one placed by the respondent-insurer.
17. We are of the view that the parking of TATA Ace vehicle was the
root cause for the accident. Though it is alleged that the deceased might have
__________
Page8 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/06/2026 04:32:23 pm )

2026:MHC:2304
CMA No.1163 of 2024
come at high speed, that could not be considered as a negligent act, since the
parking place was a crucial point, triggering the accident. Therefore, fixing up
of contributory negligence on the deceased would not be proper and we agree
with the case of the claimants that the accident had occurred solely due to the
negligent parking of TATA Ace vehicle on the track, which was specifically
meant for two wheelers. As such, we are not inclined to fix contributory
negligence on the deceased. Accordingly, the negligence fixed by the Tribunal
on TATA Ace vehicle is confirmed. As far as the quantum is concerned, there
is no challenge to it and hence we confirm the same.
18. For all the above reasons, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected C.M.P.No.10504 of 2024 is
closed.
(C.V.K.,J.) (K.R.S.,J.)
03-06-2026
Index: Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes
DIXIT
To
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.1,
Special District Court,
Thiruvallur.
__________
Page9 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/06/2026 04:32:23 pm )

2026:MHC:2304
CMA No.1163 of 2024
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
AND
K.RAJASEKAR, J.
DIXIT
CMA No. 1163 of 2024
03-06-2026
__________
Page10 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/06/2026 04:32:23 pm )