THIRUNAVUKKARASU vs V.HARISHKUMAR

CMA No. 3178 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
CMA No. 3178 of 2024
CNR: {HCMA012020862024}
1. Thirunavukkarasu
2. Lalitha
..Appellants
Vs
1. V.Harishkumar
2. United India Insurance Co.Ltd,
Motor Third Party Claims, No.134,
Greams Road, Sillingi Building,
Chennai-600 006.
..Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, praying to allow the claim in M.C.O.P.No.565 of 2018
dated 09-07-2024 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(In the III
Court of Small Causes), Chennai.
For Appellants : Mr.K.Varadha Kamaraj
For Respondents : Mr. M.B.Raghavan
For M/s. M.B.Gopalan Associates
(For R2)
JUDGMENT
The claimants have preferred this appeal, challenging the dismissal of the
Claim Petition by the Tribunal. The Claim Petition has been filed under Section
163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act [hereinafter referred to as the ‘MV Act’] by
__________
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 02:25:14 pm )

CMA No. 3178 of 2024
the dependants of the deceased, Sarath Kumar, who sustained fatal injuries in a
motor accident, seeking for a compensation. The claimants are the parents of the
deceased.
2. According to the claimants, on 04.08.2017, at about 01.30 hours, while
the deceased was riding his motor cycle bearing Reg.No.TN-14-C-2325 at a
place in ECR near Akkarai, opposite to R.K.Traders, a motor cycle bearing
Reg.No.TN-11-V-4961, driven by its rider in a rash and negligent manner,
overtook the deceased’s vehicle and suddenly applied the brake in front of him.
As a result, the deceased lost control, hit the rear side of the motor cycle bearing
Reg.No.TN-11-V-4961 and thereafter hit a tree on the roadside. Consequently,
the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on 04.08.2017 while being
taken to the hospital.
3. The first respondent was called absent and set ex parte before the
Tribunal. The second respondent/Insurance Company has filed a counter
statement, wherein it has been stated that only those whose annual income was
up to Rs.40,000/- can claim compensation under Section 163 (A) of the MV
Act. The deceased was a student and a non-earning person. Hence, the Claim
Petition filed under Section 163(A) of the MV Act was not maintainable. It was
further contended that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent
act of the deceased, who rode the motor cycle bearing Reg.No.TN-14-C-2325 in
__________
Page 2 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 02:25:14 pm )

CMA No. 3178 of 2024
a rash and negligent manner and hit the rear side of the motor cycle bearing
Reg.No.TN-11-V-4961, which was proceeding ahead of him, and that the
deceased was solely responsible for the accident.
4. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimants, the first claimant was
examined as P.W.1 and one Mr. K. Allan Benaiah was examined as P.W.2.
Exs.P1 to P21 were marked. On the side of the second respondent, no
documents were marked and no witnesses were examined. On appreciation of
the evidence adduced on either side, the Tribunal found that the deceased was
responsible for the accident and that the Claim Petition filed under Section
163(A) of the MV Act was not maintainable. Hence, the Claim Petition was
dismissed.
5. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants have preferred this appeal,
challenging the order of dismissal passed by the Tribunal.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants would submit that the
Tribunal went wrong in dismissing the Claim Petition by solely relying on the
FIR (Ex.P2). The Tribunal ought not to have believed the contents of the FIR
when the same had not been proved by the person who lodged it. The Tribunal
had wrongly concluded, based on the FIR, that the deceased was negligent on
the date of the accident and dismissed the Claim Petition. The evidence of
__________
Page 3 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 02:25:14 pm )

CMA No. 3178 of 2024
P.W.2, who was an eyewitness, categorically stated that the accident occurred
due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the first respondent’s
vehicle. Further, he would submit that, without going into the question of
negligence factor, the Tribunal ought to have allowed the Claim Petition on the
basis of the structured formula under Schedule II of the MV Act, 1988.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second
respondent/Insurance Company would submit that the findings of the Tribunal
were justified, as the deceased was a non-earning member and only persons
whose annual income was up to Rs.40,000/- alone can maintain a Claim Petition
under Section 163(A) of the MV Act. Since the deceased was a non-earning
member, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the Claim Petition.
8. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing on either side and perused the records carefully.
9. It is seen from the records that the Claim Petition was filed under
Section 163(A) of the MV Act, seeking compensation by the dependents of the
deceased, Sarath Kumar, who sustained fatal injuries in a road accident. The
claimants are the parents of the deceased. A perusal of Ex.P2 (FIR) shows that
the deceased himself is a tortfeasor, whereas P.W.1 deposed that the rider of the
first respondent’s vehicle suddenly applied the brake, as a result of which the
__________
Page 4 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 02:25:14 pm )

CMA No. 3178 of 2024
deceased lost control, hit the side of the road, sustained fatal injuries and
succumbed to the same. P.W.2, who was an eyewitness to the accident, had also
deposed about the manner in which the accident occurred.
10. However, it is relevant to note that the Claim Petition was filed under
Section 163(A) of the MV Act, under which the claimants are not required to
plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement was due to any
wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or any other person.
Therefore, the question of negligence on the part of the deceased cannot, by
itself, be a ground to dismiss the Claim Petition. The Tribunal, having dismissed
the Claim Petition primarily on the ground that the deceased was responsible for
the accident, has failed to consider the nature and scope of Section 163(A) of
the MV Act. Hence, the finding of the Tribunal in this regard is liable to be set
aside.
11. As regards the quantum of compensation, the accident occurred on
04.08.2017 and the compensation has to be determined by applying the
amended Schedule II of the MV Act. In view of the above circumstances, this
Court is inclined to fix the notional annual income of the deceased at
Rs.25,000/- and apply a multiplier of 17.
__________
Page 5 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 02:25:14 pm )

CMA No. 3178 of 2024
12. Accordingly, the Loss of Income is calculated as follows:
Annual income of the deceased : Rs.25,000/-
Multiplier : 17
Loss of Income : Rs.25,000/- × 17 = Rs.4,25,000/-
13. The claimants are also entitled to compensation under the following
heads:
1. Loss of Income : Rs.4,25,000/-
2. Funeral Expenses : Rs. 2,000/-
3. Loss of Consortium
(Rs.5,000/- each to the parents) : Rs. 10,000/-
4. Loss of Estate : Rs. 2,500/-
Total Compensation : Rs.4,39,500/-
14. The compensation is tabulated below:
S.No Head of
Compensation
Amount
awarded by the
Amount
awarded by
Tribunal
this Court
(Rs)
(Rs)
1. Loss of Income - 4,25,000/-
2. Funeral Expenses - 2,000/-
3. Loss of Consortium - 10,000/-
4. Loss of Estate - 2,500/-
Total - 4,39,500/-
__________
Page 6 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 02:25:14 pm )

CMA No. 3178 of 2024
15. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands allowed. The
order passed by the Tribunal, dismissing the Claim Petition in M.C.O.P.No.565
of 2018 dated 09-07-2024 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(In the
III Court of Small Causes), Chennai, is set aside and the claimants are awarded
a total compensation of Rs.4,39,500/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Thirty Nine
Thousand and Five Hundred only). The second respondent/ Insurance is
directed to deposit the entire award amount now determined by this Court along
with interest and costs, if any, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.565 of 2018 on
the file of on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(In the III Court of
Small Causes), Chennai. On such deposit, the claimants/appellants are permitted
to withdraw the award amount now determined by this Court, along with
interest and costs, if any, by making proper application before the Tribunal. The
amount so deposited shall be transferred to the bank account of the claimants by
way of NEFT/RTGS. The claimants are directed to pay necessary Court fee, if
any, on the enhanced compensation. No costs.
12-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
kak
__________
Page 7 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 02:25:14 pm )

CMA No. 3178 of 2024
To
1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(In the III Court of Small Causes) Chennai.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
High Court, Madras.
__________
Page 8 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 02:25:14 pm )

CMA No. 3178 of 2024
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
kak
CMA No. 3178 of 2024
12-10-2026
__________
Page 9 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 02:25:14 pm )