Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd vs R.Lalitha,

CMA No.2218 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16-07-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
CMA No.2218 of 2026
and CMP No.16969 of 2026
Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
No.195, WTV Swamy Road, RS Puram,
Coimbatore – 641 002.
..Appellant(s)
Vs
1. R.Lalitha, aged 34 years,
W/o. Late. Ramesh
2.Minor R.Harshini, aged 12 years,
D/o. Late Ramesh
3.Minor R.Rithika, aged 10 years,
D/o. Late Ramesh
4.Minor R.Rakshan, aged 7 years,
D/o. Late Ramesh
..Respondent(s)
(Minors represented by their Next Friend and Guardian mother Lalitha)
5.R.Karnan, aged 30 years,
S/o. Rangasamy
6.Kaneeswari,
W/o. Raman
7.Manthral, aged 63 years,
W.o. Late Rangan
__________
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/07/2026 01:52:22 pm )

CMA No.2218 of 2026
Prayer: To set aside the award dated 23.07.2025 made in M.C.O.P.No.596 of
2023, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, V Additional District
Judge, Coimbatore.
For Appellant(s): Mr.Siva Kollapan B
For Respondent(s): Mr.M.Lokesh,
Counsel for R1 to R4
Judgment
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.Jothiraman J.)
Unsuccessful Insurance Company has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal, challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal
dated 23.07.2025 made in M.C.O.P.No.596 of 2023 passed by the learned
Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal V, Additional District Judge, Coimbatore.
st st
2. 1 respondent / 1 claimant is the wife of the deceased Ramesh.
nd rd
Respondents 2 and 3 / 2 and 3 claimants are the daughters of the deceased.
th th
4 respondent/ 4 claimant is the son of the deceased. According to the
claimants, on 12.03.2023, the deceased Ramesh was driving the two wheeler
which belonged to his friend bearing Reg.No.TN 99 H 6928, wearing helmet
from Valukkuparai to Nachpalayam and when the deceased crossed
Valukkuparai Athumedu from South to North direction, at that time the driver
of the Bajaj CT 125 motorcycle bearing Reg.No.TN 99 Y 1568 came from
North to South direction in a rash and negligent manner, hit on the deceased.
The deceased Ramesh fell on the road and died on the spot. The first
__________
Page 2 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/07/2026 01:52:22 pm )

CMA No.2218 of 2026
respondent therein failed to exercise reasonable due care and caution while
driving and out of his rash and negligent driving, the accident occurred. At the
time of accident, the deceased was aged about 38 years and was doing centring
masonry work at several place at Madukkarai and earned Rs.25,000/- per month
till his death.
rd
3. The appellant Insurance Company / 3 respondent in the claim petition,
nd
has filed a counter statement wherein it has been stated that the 2 respondent
therein namely R.Kanneswari has taken a two wheeler package policy for the
period 18.01.2023 to 17.01.2028, which is subject to terms and conditions. The
investigation conducted by police reveals that on the date of the alleged accident
st
on 12.03.2023, the 1 respondent therein did not hold an effective and valid
driving licence to drive the two wheeler Bajaj CT 125 bearing Reg.No.TN 99 Y
1568. Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 prohibits driving of a motor
vehicle in any public place unless the driver has an effective driving licence. It
is also stated that as per amended Motor Vehicles Act, since on the date of the
accident, as the driver did not possess a valid and effective licence to drive IV
vehicle, the liability of the Insurer / appellant stands exonerated and that the
insured alone is liable to compensate the claimants. The alleged accident on
st
12.03.2023 occurred not only due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1
respondent therein as alleged, who in fact was driving at a slow and steady
manner from North to South direction besides was observing all traffic rules and
__________
Page 3 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/07/2026 01:52:22 pm )

CMA No.2218 of 2026
regulations, wherein the deceased as alleged rider on the same road and in
opposite direction from South to North in a rash and negligent manner in a zig
zag manner, lost control and without noticing the oncoming IV vehicle, dashed
with the IV vehicle and thus but for the sole negligent act of the deceased, the
alleged accident would not have occurred. It is further stated that in the event of
any compensation being decided in their favour, the same to be apportioned
equally on account of significant and apparent contributory negligence.
st
4. On behalf of the claimants, the 1 claimant / wife of the deceased
Lalitha was examined as PW1. One Kodiyarasu, an eye witness was examined
as PW2 and Exs.P1 to P15 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, one
Ayyasamy was examined as RW1 and Exs.R1 to R4 were marked. Upon
appreciation of evidence adduced on either side, the Tribunal finds that as per
the evidence of PW2, who is an eye witness to the occurrence reveals that due
st
to the rash and negligent driving of the 1 respondent therein alone, the accident
had occurred. Considering that the age of the deceased was 38 years at the time
of accident, the Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the deceased at
Rs.15,000/- per month [Rs.600 per day for 25 days], adding 40 % for Future
Prospects and deducting 1/4th for personal expenses and by applying the
Multiplier “15” by following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Sarla Verma and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Ors. [2009 (2)
TNMAC 1] and National Insurance Co., Ltd., v. Pranay Sethi and others
__________
Page 4 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/07/2026 01:52:22 pm )

CMA No.2218 of 2026
[2017 (2) TNMAC 609 (SC)] has awarded total compensation in a sum of
Rs.31,59,000/- under the following heads:
Head of Compensation Amount Awarded by the
Tribunal (in Rs.)
Loss of Income
Rs.21,000 (15,000 + 6000) x 12 x 15 x ¾
28,35,000
Loss of Estate 18,000
Loss of Love and Affection (5 x 48,000) 2,40,000
Funeral Expenses 18,000
Loss of Consortium 48,000
Total 31,59,000
The Tribunal also found that as per Ex.R2 – Motor Vehicle Inspection Report
th
reveals that at the time of the accident, the 5 respondent herein did not possess
valid driving licence and ordered the Insurance Company to pay compensation
amount and thereafter, recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.
rd
Aggrieved over the same, the 3 respondent therein / appellant Insurance
Company has preferred the present appeal.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the
Tribunal erred in holding that the appellant Insurance Company is liable to pay
compensation to the claimants and recover it from the owner without looking
into the fact that the alleged accident occurred on 12.03.2023, which is after the
Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 coming into force on 01.04.2022. In
view of the above amendment, the Tribunal ought to have exonerated the
__________
Page 5 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/07/2026 01:52:22 pm )

CMA No.2218 of 2026
Insurance Company on the ground that the alleged accident took place on
12.03.2023, which is after the amendment came into force. The learned counsel
st
for the appellant further would submit that when the admitted fact that the 1
respondent therein vehicle rider was not holding any driving licence at the
relevant time of accident, but for the purpose of granting compensation to the
petitioner, the Tribunal has erroneously ordered compensation to the petitioner,
which requires interference. The Tribunal has also failed to appreciate the
evidence of RW1, the RTO official who has deposed about the non-possession
st
of Driving Licence by the 1 respondent therein. The Tribunal has erroneously
awarded Rs.31,59,000/- when the claim amount of the claimant itself is
restricted to Rs.30,00,000/- which requires interference by this Court.
6. Per contra , learned counsel appearing for the respondents / claimants
would submit that the eye witness to the accident namely PW2 has categorically
st
deposed that due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1 respondent therein,
the accident had occurred. The Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased
at Rs.15,000/- and as per the ratio laid down in Smt.Sarla Verma and Others v.
Delhi Transport Corporation and another [2009 (2) TNMAC 1 (SC)] and
National Insurance Co., Ltd., v. Pranay Sethi and others [2017 (2) TNMAC
609 (SC)] , applied the correct Multiplier and Future Prospectus, has awarded
the compensation, which need not be interfered with.
__________
Page 6 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/07/2026 01:52:22 pm )

CMA No.2218 of 2026
7. We have carefully considered the submissions made on either side and
perused the entire materials on record.
8. It is seen from the records, on appreciation of evidence adduced on
th
either side, the Tribunal has found that the rider of the 5 respondent’s vehicle
bearing Reg.No.TN-99 H 6928 was not holding any driving licence at the
relevant point of time of accident. However, the Tribunal holding that the
appellant / Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the claimants
and then recover it from the owner. According to the appellant, the Tribunal
without looking into the fact that the alleged accident occurred on 12.03.2023,
which is after the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 coming into force on
01.04.2022. Therefore, the Tribunal has exonerated the appellant on the ground
that the accident took place on 12.03.2023 which is after the Amendment Act
came into force. It is also seen from the records that as per Ex.R2- Motor
th
Vehicle Inspection Report- Online Report, which shows that the 5 respondent
st
herein / 1 respondent therein was not holding valid driving licence at the time
of the alleged accident. As per the evidence of RW1 / RTO official, who has
th
deposed about the non-possession of driving licence by the 5 respondent
herein.
9. It is pertinent to note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Sudhir Kumar Rana v. Surinder Singh & Ors. Reported in 2008 (12) SCC
__________
Page 7 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/07/2026 01:52:22 pm )

CMA No.2218 of 2026
436, has held that non possession of driving licence alone cannot attribute
contributory negligence. By applying the above ratio, in the case on hand, non-
possession of driving licence, cannot impose contributory negligence.
10. It is relevant to mention that with regard to the issue of pay and
recovery, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in The Branch Manager,
ICICI Lombard, Thanjavur v. Mariyapushpam and Others [01.06.2026 in
CMA(MD) Nos.517 of 2025], in the penultimate paragraph has observed as
under:
“74.We are fortified in taking this view since even under the
unamended Form 51, Serial Nos 10 and 11 stated that the policy
does not cover use for -- (a) organized racing, or (b) speed testing
and (c) use for hire or reward which were all permissible defences
under Section 149(2) (a)(i)(a) and 149(2)(a)(i)(b). However, even
under the regime which existed prior to the Motor Vehicles
(Amendment) Act, 2019 in all such cases also the insurer was first
bound to satisfy the claim of the third party under the award and
then proceed to recover the same from the insurer. Consequently,
this contention also fails.
CONCLUSION
75.For the reasons stated above, we hold and declare that:
a. The deletion of the proviso to Section 149(4) and Section
149(5) in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as it stood prior to the
amendment by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 (Act 32
of 2019), does not have the effect of obliterating the statutory duty
of the insurer to pay the claims made under an award or decree in
respect of liability covered under a policy of insurance.
b. The duty vis-à-vis a third party is statutory in character
and flows from Section 150(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as
amended by Act 32 of 2019, and remains unhindered by the fact
that the insurance company has succeeded in establishing a
contractual defense permitted under Section 150(2).
c. In the event the insurance company succeeds in
establishing a defense under Section 150(2), the insurer will
__________
Page 8 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/07/2026 01:52:22 pm )

CMA No.2218 of 2026
stand absolved from its contractual liability vis-à-vis the insured.
Consequently, the insurer, after satisfying its statutory liability
under Section 150(1) can proceed to recover the sum so paid
from the insured. The insurance company can proceed to recover
the same in terms of the directions contained in paragraph 110
(x) of the decision of the Supreme Court in National Insurance
Co. Ltd v Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297.
d. Conversely, if the insurance company does not succeed in
establishing a defense under Section 150(2) the burden to meet the
entire claim will fall on the insurer by virtue of Section 147(2) as
amended by Act 32 of 2019, and Rule 2 of the Third-Party
Insurance (Base Premium and Liability) Rules, 2022 which
provides for unlimited liability in respect of third party insurance
under Chapter XI of the Act.”
By applying the ratio laid down in the above decision, and considering the facts
and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Tribunal for pay and
recovery cannot be found fault with. Insofar as the quantum of compensation
fixed by the Tribunal, we have gone through the compensation awarded under
various heads and finds that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, is just
and proper.
11. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed,
confirming the award dated 23.07.2025 passed in MCOP.No.596/2023 on the
file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, V Additional District Judge,
Coimbatore. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also
dismissed.
(N.S.K.,J.) (M.J.R.,J.)
16-07-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Jvm
__________
Page 9 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/07/2026 01:52:22 pm )

CMA No.2218 of 2026
N.SATHISH KUMAR J.
AND
M.JOTHIRAMAN J.
Jvm
To
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
V Additional District Judge,
Coimbatore.
CMA No.2218 of 2026
and CMP No.16969 of 2026
16-07-2026
__________
Page 10 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/07/2026 01:52:22 pm )