UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD vs NIRMALA

CMA No. 661 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
CMA No. 661 of 2022
and C.M.P.No.4717 of 2022
CNR: {HCMA010098642022}
United India Insurance Company Limited,
th
No.134, 4 Floor, Silingi Buildings,
Motor TP HUB,
Greams Road, Chennai-600006
..Appellant(s)
Vs
1. Nirmala
2. Karthick Raja
(Amended as per order in M.P.No.3081/2019
dated 02.12.2019),
3. Minor. Nimisha
D/o. Shanmugam,
Minor Rep. by her mother, Natural Guardian,
Next Friend Nirmala,
4. Gokul @ Gokulram
5. Shanmugam
6. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
No.115, 2nd Floor, Oriental House, Broadway,
Prakasam Salai, Chennai-600108
7. Abdul Samed
..Respondent(s)
__________
Page1 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 05:53:51 pm )

CMA No. 661 of 2022
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award and decree dated 17.04.2021 made in
MCOP No.6385 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Chief Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Arun Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.S.Ranjith Kumar for R1 to R3
Mr.Elveera Raveendran for R6
J U D G M E N T
For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to herein as per
their respective ranks before the Tribunal.
2. The unsuccessful United India Insurance Company Limited/fifth
respondent has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging 30% of
negligence fixed on them in M.C.O.P.No.6385 of 2018, vide award dated
17.04.2021.
3. The first claimant is the wife, the second and third claimants are the
son and daughter of the deceased Shanmugam. According to the claimants, on
12.09.2018 at about 05.45 p.m., the deceased was riding his two wheeler
bearing Reg.No.TN 11 AA 8417 at Kundrathur to Sriperumbudur Main Road,
__________
Page2 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 05:53:51 pm )

CMA No. 661 of 2022
Periyar Nagar and in front of VPM Mobile shop, a Hyundai Accent car bearing
Reg.No.TN 85 E 9586 hit the deceased’s two-wheeler, due to which, the
deceased fell down from the motorcycle and was quarrelling with the car driver
about his negligence. At that time, a person by name Gokul @ Gokulraj who
belongs to Periyar Nagar, told the deceased to calm down and pushed the
deceased, due to which, the deceased lost his balance and fell down on the road.
At that juncture, a tipper lorry bearing Reg.No.TN 73 H 1222 dashed against the
deceased and as a result of which, the deceased sustained severe injuries and
died on the spot. The first respondent, namely, Gokul @ Gokulraj belongs to
Periyar Nagar and the second and third respondents are the owner and insurer of
the lorry and the fourth and fifth respondents are the owner and insurer of the
car.
4. The third respondent/insurer of the tipper lorry has filed a counter
statement, wherein, it has been stated that the alleged accident happened
because of quarrel between the driver of the fourth respondent’s car and the
deceased and particularly, when the deceased was pushed down by the first
respondent. The driver of the lorry which was proceeding on its correct track
cannot expect that the deceased was pulled down by the first respondent and fell
down on the wheels.
__________
Page3 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 05:53:51 pm )

CMA No. 661 of 2022
5. The fifth respondent/insurer of the car has filed a counter statement
wherein, it has been stated that the accident occurred solely due to the
negligence of the deceased and the driver of the fourth respondent is not
responsible for the accident and hence, the fifth respondent is not liable to pay
any compensation to the claimants. It is also stated that the car bearing
Reg.No.TN 85 E 9586 slightly hit the two-wheeler, due to which, the deceased
argued with the driver of the fourth respondent and at that time, a public by
name Gokul @ Gokulram/first respondent, who was watching the incident,
advised the deceased to calm down and pushed him and due to the force touch
of the first respondent, the deceased was hit by the Tipper lorry bearing
Reg.No.TN 73 H 1222 belonging to the second respondent, which was coming
on that side and therefore, the accident was caused due to the force touch of the
first respondent and because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of
the second respondent’s lorry.
6. The first, second and the fourth respondents were called absent and set
ex-parte before the Tribunal.
7. On behalf of the claimants, the first claimant herself was examined as
P.W.1 and eye-witness was examined as P.W.2 and an official from X-Ray
Technician of Christudas Hospital, was examined as P.W.3. Ex.P1 to Ex.P23
were marked. On the side of the fifth respondent, one P.M.Soundararajan,
__________
Page4 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 05:53:51 pm )

CMA No. 661 of 2022
Deputy Manager of the Insurance Company was examined as R.W.1 and Ex.R1
to Ex.R5 were marked.
8. Upon appreciation of evidence adduced on either side, the Tribunal
held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of
the fourth respondent’s car and fixed 30% negligence on the part of the driver of
the fourth respondent’s car, whereas, it has also been held that the first and
second respondents have also contributed to the accident and hence, 10% of
negligence was fixed on the first respondent and 60% of negligence was fixed
on the driver of the second respondent’s tipper lorry. With regard to the
quantum of compensation, the Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the
deceased at Rs.11,000/- and added 25% towards future prospects and deducted
1/3rd towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and adopted the
multiplier “14” and a sum of Rs.15,40,000/- was awarded under the head of loss
of dependency and the following compensation was also awarded by the
Tribunal under various heads:-
Sl.No Heads Amount
1. Loss of dependency Rs.15,40,000/-
2. Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/-
3. Consortium Rs.30,000/-
4. Loss of love and affection Rs.60,000/-
Total Rs.16,45,000/-
__________
Page5 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 05:53:51 pm )

CMA No. 661 of 2022
9. Aggrieved over fixing 30% of negligence on the driver of the fourth
respondent’s car, the fifth respondent/United India Insurance Company Limited
has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
10. The learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent/appellant
herein would submit that the Tribunal erred in holding that the driver of the car
was responsible for the death of the deceased Shanmugam to an extent of 30%
inspite of the fact that the deceased Shanmugam did not sustain any injury in the
impact occurred between the car and two-wheeler and further, the negligence on
the driver of the car is not proved. Admittedly, the first respondent pushed the
deceased Shanmugam and this is the first cause for the death of the deceased.
Therefore, the claim against the fifth respondent/appellant herein is not
maintainable. P.W.2, who is an eye-witness to the accident, has categorically
deposed that the accident had caused only by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein.
In such circumstances, the Tribunal erred in apportioning negligence upon the
driver of the fourth respondent’s car. He would further submit that the accident
between the car and two-wheeler is a different cause of action. The first
respondent pushed the deceased is the first action and the rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the tipper lorry is the second action, in which, the
deceased died and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have inferred that the
tortuous act of the first respondent has severed the chain of causation between
the earlier wrongful act and its effect. Therefore, the driver of the car was no
__________
Page6 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 05:53:51 pm )

CMA No. 661 of 2022
way responsible for the subsequent accident involving the first and second
respondents.
11. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the third
respondent/sixth respondent herein would submit that due to force touch by the
first respondent, the deceased was hit by the tipper lorry which was coming on
that side and therefore, the accident caused due to the force touch of the first
respondent and because of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car
alone and therefore, the respondents 4 and 5/owner and insurer of the car alone
are liable to pay compensation to the claimants. Due to rash and negligent act of
the driver of the car who hit the deceased’s motorcycle, the deceased involved
in quarrel with the driver of the car and at that time, the first respondent came
there and pacified the persons who involved in the quarrel and pushed the
deceased, due to which, the deceased fell down on the road. In such
circumstances, there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the tipper lorry
and therefore, the insurer of the tipper lorry is not liable to pay compensation.
However, the Tribunal has erroneously fixed 60% of negligence on their part
and directed the third respondent to pay compensation.
12. This Court considered the submissions made on either side and
perused the materials available on record.
__________
Page7 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 05:53:51 pm )

CMA No. 661 of 2022
13. P.W.2, Meganathan, who is an eye-witness to the accident, deposed
that on 12.09.2018 at about 05.45 p.m., the deceased was returning home in his
two-wheeler bearing Reg.No.TN 11 AA 8417 from Kundrathur to
Sriperumbudur and near Periyar Nagar, a Hyundai Accent car bearing
Reg.No.TN 85 E 9586 hit behind the motorcycle and the rear side of the
motorcycle was damaged and the deceased had involved in quarrel with the
driver of the car about his negligence. While so, one Gokul @ Gokulram who
belongs to Periyar Nagar told the deceased to calm down and also pushed him.
At that time, a tipper lorry which was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent
manner dashed against the deceased and as a result of which, the deceased
sustained severe head injuries and died on the spot.
14. On behalf of the fifth respondent/appellant herein/insurer of the car,
they have chosen to examine one Soundararajan, Deputy Manager of the fifth
respondent Insurance Company as R.W.1 and he has deposed that they have
appointed one R.Raja as Investigator to investigate the accident and the
Investigation Report was also marked. He further deposed that as per FIR, the
first respondent, who was watching the incident, told the deceased to calm down
and pushed him and due to the force touch of first respondent, the deceased was
hit by the tipper lorry which belongs to the second respondent and died on the
spot. R.W.1 deposed that the accident occurred due to the force touch by the
first respondent and because of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
__________
Page8 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 05:53:51 pm )

CMA No. 661 of 2022
second respondent’s lorry and therefore, the respondent Nos.4 and 5 are not
liable to pay compensation.
15. A perusal of Ex.P1/FIR shows that a case has been registered against
one Gokul / first respondent and the respondents Nos.2 and 4 and as per FIR,
the first respondent came there and tried to pacify the situation and pushed
down the deceased. At the same time, the second respondent’s tipper lorry came
there and dashed against the deceased, due to which, the deceased fell down and
sustained head injuries and died on the spot. It is relevant to note that the root
cause of the accident was at the first instance of the car belonging to the fourth
respondent which hit against the deceased’s motorcycle and after that, the
subsequent incidents happened. Hence, considering the evidence of P.W.2 and
Ex.P1/FIR, this Court is of the considered opinion that the first, second and
fourth respondents have contributed to the accident. If the driver of the fourth
respondent’s car drove the vehicle in a careful manner, there was no damage
caused to the deceased’s two wheeler and no quarrel would have been happened
between the deceased and the driver of the fourth respondent’s car and there
would not be any role on the first respondent. It is pertinent to note here that on
noticing the quarrel between the deceased and the driver of the fourth
respondent’s car on the road, the driver of the second respondent’s lorry should
have driven the vehicle in a careful manner and the accident could have been
avoided. In such circumstances, the Tribunal fixed 10% negligence on the part
__________
Page9 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 05:53:51 pm )

CMA No. 661 of 2022
of the first respondent/Gokul @ Gokulram and 30% on the driver of the fourth
respondent’s car and 60% on the driver of the second respondent’s tipper lorry.
Hence, the findings of the Tribunal with regard to fixation of negligence on the
part of the fourth respondent’s car does not require any interference by this
Court. Further, there is no dispute with regard to the quantum of compensation
awarded by the Tribunal.
16. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the
award dated 17.04.2021 passed in M.C.O.P.No.6385 of 2018 by the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Court of Small Causes, Chennai, is hereby
confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
15-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
ssb
To
1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Chief Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R. Section,
High Court,
Chennai.
__________
Page10 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 05:53:51 pm )

CMA No. 661 of 2022
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
ssb
CMA No. 661 of 2022
15-10-2026
__________
Page11 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 05:53:51 pm )