NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY vs PERIYANNAN

CMA No. 2140 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25-08-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
CMA No. 2140 of 2018
New India Assurance Company
Ltd Chinnalapatti Post Dindukkal Dt
..Appellant(s)
Vs
1. Periyannan
S/o. Ramasamy 33, Ambalakara Street,
Perambalur Post, Perambalur District.
2. Palai
S/o Murugesan 87a, Illanthoppu Stret, Eraiyur
Post, Chengam Taluk, Pachal (na) 606 704
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and Decree in MCOP No. 334/2014,
dated 04.05.2016 on the file of the MACT, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court,
Perambalur.
For Appellant(s): Mrs.A.Salomi
For Respondent(s): M/s. T.Gobinath
Judgment
Unsuccessful Insurance Company has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal, challenging the award dated 04.05.2016 in M.C.O.P.No.334 of 2014,
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Perambalur.
__________
Page1 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 04:18:42 pm )

CMA No. 2140 of 2018
2. According to the claimant / Periyannan, he was the driver of the two
wheeler TVS 50 bearing Reg.No.TN 48 A 4072 on 08.06.2014 at 8.00 p.m and
was proceedings from Melur to Jadamangalam via Konapampatti on the left
side of the road. While so, a Tractor bearing Reg.No.TN 25 AC 8966 along
st
with the Trailer /belonging to the 1 respondent was coming from North to
South direction and it was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner.
When the claimant was proceeding near Karuppar Koil, Konapampatti to
st
Jadamangalam Road, the Trailer attached to the Tractor driven by the 1
respondent dashed against the claimant’s TVS50. Due to the accident, the
claimant sustained multiple grievous injuries all over his body. He was
admitted in the Government Hospital, Namakkal on 08.06.2014 as out-patient
and then admitted in Ganga Hospital, Coimbatore from 08.06.2014 to
20.06.2014 for 13 days as in-patient. The claimant filed claim petition claiming
compensation to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/- with interest and costs.
nd
3. The appellant Insurance Company / 2 respondent therein has filed a
counter statement wherein it has been stated that the FIR is belated. The
accident and involvement of the vehicle is denied as false and the claimant is
st
put to strict proof of the same. It is also denied that the 1 respondent driver had
possessed a valid Driving Licence. The manner of accident set out in the claim
petition and the allegation that the accident took place due to the rash and
negligent driving of the Tractor are denied as false. In fact, the claimant who
__________
Page2 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 04:18:42 pm )

CMA No. 2140 of 2018
was proceeding on his left side of the road while the Tractor was about to pass
him, on hearing horn sound, the claimant lost his balance, all of a sudden came
towards his right side and got dashed against the Trailer attached to the Tractor
and invited the accident.
4. On behalf of the claimant, the claimant himself examined as PW1 and
one Doctor Selvaraj was examined as PW2 and Exs.P1 to P8 were marked. On
the side of the respondents, RW1 to RW3 were examined and Exs.R1 to R5
were marked.
5. Upon appreciation of evidence adduced on either side, the Tribunal
found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the Tractor and considering the nature of injuries sustained by the
claimant, fixed the notional income of the claimant as Rs.6,000/- per month by
and deducting 1/10th towards personal expenses and adopting the Multiplier
“17”, awarded Rs.11,01,600/- towards Loss of Earnings [(6000 – 600) = 5400 x
12 x 17]. The Tribunal also has awarded Rs.74,642/- towards Medical
Expenses, Rs.10,000/- each towards Transportation and Attender Charges, in
total awarded Rs.11,96,242/- as compensation with interest 7.5% p.a. and costs,
which was first payable by the insurance Company and thereafter to be
st
recovered from the 1 respondent. Being aggrieved over the same, the
Insurance Company has preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
__________
Page3 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 04:18:42 pm )

CMA No. 2140 of 2018
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the
driver of the Tractor / RW1 has categorically deposed that the accident was
caused due to the negligent driving of the claimant, who dashed against the
Trailer and caused the accident. Based on the evidence of RW1 and as per
Exs.R 1 to R6, the Tribunal ought to have fixed Contributory Negligence to an
extent of 50% on the claimant. The Tribunal erred in awarding “Pay and
Recovery” and ought to have exonerated the insurer, when the insured driver
was not possessing valid and effective driving licence to drive the insured
vehicle on the date of accident. The Tribunal, having accepted the disability of
the claimants assessed by PW2/Doctor at 52%, erred in computing the loss of
earning capacity / permanent disability at 100%, which is unreasonable and
without any basis.
7. This Court heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
appellant and also perused the entire materials available on record.
8. The claimant examined himself as PW1. He has deposed that when he
was proceeding from Melur to Jadamangalam via Konapampatti on the left side
of the road in his two wheeler TVS 5 bearing Reg.No.TN 48A 4072, at that
time, the Tractor bearing Reg.No. TN 25 AC 8966 along with the Trailer was
coming from North to South direction and it was being driven by its driver in a
rash and negligent manner and when the claimant was nearing Karuppur koil,
__________
Page4 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 04:18:42 pm )

CMA No. 2140 of 2018
st
Konapampatti to Jadamangalam road, the Trailer attached to the 1 respondents’
Tractor dashed against the claimant’s TVS 50. Due to the accident, the
claimant sustained multiple grievous injuries all over his body including right
leg fractured, right thigh fractured, right shoulder injured and right leg knee
injured. According to the appellant, the Trailer was not insured at the time of
accident and the claimant had no valid driving licence and the vehicle driven by
him also was not insured.
9. In order to establish the case of the appellant Insurance Company, the
driver of the Tractor, who drove the Tractor along with Trailer, one
Vijayakumar was examined as RW1. He has deposed that when he was driving
the Tractor along with the Trailer will full load of straw stack, at about 8.00
p.m. on 08.06.2014, when he was nearing Karuppar Kovil, Konapampatti from
North to Sough direction, at that time in the opposite direction a person was
driving TVS 50 Two wheeler without headlight. While he was crossing the
Tractor and reaching the portion of Trailer carrying straw stack which was
attached to it, in the absence of headlight in his two wheeler, in a rash and
st
negligent manner, he dashed against the Trailer attached to the 1 respondent’s
Tractor. RW1 also deposed that he is not responsible for the accident and the
Trailer was not registered and he does not know whether the Trailer has to be
registered or not as per the Act.
__________
Page5 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 04:18:42 pm )

CMA No. 2140 of 2018
10. The Driving Licence belongs to RW1 was marked as Ex.R1. It is not
in dispute that Ex.R1 is the Driving Licence relating to lightweight motor
vehicle. RW1 admits that the Trailer was not insured. He also admits that he
has not lodged any complaint against the rider of the two wheeler. Though in
the counter statement it has been stated that the claimant, who was proceeding
on his left side of the road, while the Tractor about to pass him, on hearing horn
sound, the claimant due to the rash and negligent driving lost his control, all of a
sudden came to his right side and dashed against the Trailer which was attached
to the Tractor. RW1 has deposed that the claimant lost his control due to non-
glowing of his two wheeler headlight and dashed against the Trailer, whereas in
the counter statement it has been stated that due to the rash and negligent
driving of the Tractor, the claimant lost his balance and dashed against the
Tractor. The Insurance Policy pertains to the Tractor was marked as Ex.P7.
11. A careful perusal of the evidence of PW1 and the evidence of RW1
reveals that the accident was caused due to the negligence on the part of RW1.
The Tribunal also opined that due to the negligent driving of RW1, while
carrying straw stack in the Trailer, the accident had occurred. According to the
appellant, at the time of accident, the Trailer was not registered and the driver of
the Tractor was not having valid Driving Licence and therefore, the appellant
Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation.
__________
Page6 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 04:18:42 pm )

CMA No. 2140 of 2018
12. In order to prove the case of the appellant Insurance Company, they
have chosen to examine an Office Assistant from Transport Office as RW2,
who deposed that the Trailer has not been registered and the Tractor alone was
subjected for inspection and the Trailer was not subjected for inspection. RW2
has further deposed that the Trailer should not be used for any other purpose
other than agricultural activities and if it is used, the same shall be registered.
RW3- one Kannan, who is an official from the appellant Insurance Company
came to be examined and he has deposed that Trailer has not been insured and
at the time of accident, the Driver of the Tractor did not possess valid Driving
Licence. As per the evidence of RW3, the Tractor alone was insured with the
appellant Insurance Company and the Trailer was not insured. At the time of
accident, without valid Driving Licence and without registration of Trailer and
st
without Insurance of the Trailer, the 1 respondent has drove the Tractor and the
same is against law.
13. It is to be noted that when there is a policy violation, the Insurance
Company need not indemnify to pay the compensation as the insurer of the
offending vehicle. When there is no valid driving licence at the time of
accident, there is no liability on the part of the Insurance Company to indemnify
the insured, however the Insurer allowing the driver to drive the vehicle is a
violation of the policy conditions.
__________
Page7 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 04:18:42 pm )

CMA No. 2140 of 2018
14. It is admitted that the accident occurred while the Tractor insured with
the appellant was attached with the Trailer. Admittedly, the Trailer was
carrying straw stack and without any valid Insurance and Registration, its driven
on the road. Due to the negligence on the part of the Tractor driver while
crossing the Tractor and while the claimant crossing the Trailer, the Trailer hit
the claimant’s TVS 50 two wheeler and caused the accident, as per the evidence
of RW1 and RW2.
15. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in The Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited
v. Smt. Honnamma and Ors. [2025 INSC 625] , wherein it has been held as
follows:
“10. In the present case, the admitted fact is that the incident
occurred while a tractor which was insured with the Appellant was
attached to a trailer and on the trailer, a person was present who due
to an unfortunate accident, fell off the trailer which was being pulled
by / driven by / attached to the tractor, resulting in the death of such
person.
11. Therefore, the undisputed position is that the trailer was being
pulled by/attached to the tractor and then the trailer on which the
deceased was present, turned turtle/upturned, resulting in his death.
From the above, it is clear that the tractor which was insured was the
reason for the accident, it is not the case that only because of some
fault on the part of the trailer stand-alone, the accident happened.
To explain, we may give an example: that had the trailer been
stationary at a place and due to some reason, it overturned or a
mishap happened, then without the trailer being specifically insured
the Appellant would not be liable to pay, but here the main cause of
the accident was the tractor which was pulling / driving / moving the
trailer and in such sequence of events, the trailer upturned. Thus,
__________
Page8 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 04:18:42 pm )

CMA No. 2140 of 2018
the accident was caused by the tractor, as during the course of being
driven / pulled by the tractor, the accident occurred.
12. Thus, the liability of the tractor/its insurer extended to the
accident caused by the tractor resulting in the death of the deceased,
through the trailer. This being the position in the present case, the
principles emanating from the decisions where the Courts ha ve   held
that the trailer has to be separately registered with
the insurance   company to make it liable, would not be applicable.
By applying the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid
decision, in the case on hand, the accident was caused by the Tractor, as during
the course of being driven / pulled by the tractor, the accident occurred.
16. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
accident took place due to the Tractor and as such, the Trailer which was
attached to the Trailer have not been insured, cannot be a ground to exonerate
the appellant Insurance Company. Therefore, the appellant, being the insurer
of the offending vehicle, is liable to pay compensation to the claimant and
recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle.
17. As regards quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal,
according to the appellant, at the time of accident the claimant was aged about
35 years, doing coolie work and was earning Rs.7,500/- per month. In the
absence of proof of income, the Tribunal fixed the notional income of the
claimant at Rs.6,000/- per month and deducted 10% for Personal Expenses by
applying the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sunil Kumar Vs.
__________
Page9 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 04:18:42 pm )

CMA No. 2140 of 2018
Ram Singh Gaud and others reported in 2008 ACJ 9 (SC). Due to the
accident, the claimant sustained multiple grievous injuries including right leg
fractured, right thigh fractured, right shoulder injured and right leg knee injured
and he was admitted in Government Hospital, Namakkal Government Hospital,
Namakkal on 08.06.2014 for one as out-patient and then admitted in Ganga
Hospital, Coimbatore from 08.06.2014 to 20.06.2014 for 13 days as in-patient.
As per Ex.P8 – Disability Certificate, the Medical Board assessed the claimant’s
disability at 52% and also considering the nature of injuries sustained by the
claimant, the Tribunal opined that the claimant was not in a position to continue
his day to-day affairs. At the time of accident, the claimant was aged about 35
years, doing coolie work and due to the accident, he could not continue his work
as he has sustained fracture in hip and right tight and considering the nature of
disability assessed by the Medical Board, the Tribunal instead of adopting
Percentage Method has adopted Multiplier Method for computing the quantum
of compensation under Loss of Earnings.
18. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Another [2010 INSC 703],
wherein it has been held that whenever there is a functional disability on
account of permanent disability or partial permanent disability, the multiplier
method has to be applied.
__________
Page10 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 04:18:42 pm )

CMA No. 2140 of 2018
19. In the case on hand, the Tribunal has fixed Notional Income of the
claimant at Rs.6,000/- per month and deducted 1/10th for Personal Expenses
and adopted Multiplier “17” and arrived the compensation of Rs.11,01,600/- for
Loss of Earnings. The Tribunal has also granted Rs.74,642/- towards claimants
medical expenses and Rs.10,000/- each for Transportation and Attender
Charges and in total awarded compensation of Rs.11,96,242/-. Considering the
fact that the accident took place in the year 2014 and the age of the claimant
was 35 years at the time of accident, the findings of the Tribunal, fixing
Rs.6,000/- as Notional Monthly Income of the claimant and deducting 1/10th
for personal expenses for arriving the Loss of Earnings, appears to be just and
proper.
20. Considering the fact that the claimant was a coolie worker and due to
the injury sustained, he could not able to do his hard work and since he has
sustained fracture on his right leg, right thigh fractured, right shoulder injured
and right leg knee injured and he took treatment in Ganga Hospital, Coimbatore
from 08.06.2014 to 20.06.2014 for 13 days as in-patient, the Tribunal has
rightly adopted Multiplier Method instead of Percentage Method and therefore,
the said methodology adopted by the Tribunal does not warrants interference.
The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads also does not
suffer from any infirmity and does not warrant any interference. There is no
merits in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.
__________
Page11 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 04:18:42 pm )

CMA No. 2140 of 2018
21. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed,
confirming the award dated 04.05.2016 in M.C.O.P.No.334 of 2014, passed by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Perambalur.
No costs.
25-08-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Jvm
To
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Perambalur.
__________
Page12 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 04:18:42 pm )

CMA No. 2140 of 2018
M.JOTHIRAMAN J.
Jvm
CMA No. 2140 of 2018
25-08-2026
__________
Page13 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 04:18:42 pm )