The Branch Manager vs Minor.Saravanan
- Court
- Madras High Court
CMA(MD) No. 1236 of 2023 and
CROS.OBJ.(MD).No.15 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 27-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJNISH PATHIYIL
CMA(MD) No. 1236 of 2023
CNR:{HCMD011228222023}
AND
CROS.OBJ(MD) NO. 15 OF 2024,CMP(MD) NO. 11462 OF
2025,CMP(MD) NO. 16318 OF 2023
The Branch Manager
Shri Ram Geneal Insurance Complany Ltd.,
No.C-142, 1st floor,
Jayashri Towers,
6th Cross,
Thillai Nagar,
Trichy.
..Appellant(s)
Vs
1. Minor.Saravanan
Rep.by his next friend and his father kandasamy,
No.1-145, Veeriyapatti,
Kaniyalampatti,
Manjanaikenpatti,
Karur.
2. Sri Ganesh Murugan Blue metals
No.268, Puthukkanalli,
Karuduyampalayam post,
Aravakurichi Taluk,
Karur.
3. The Branch manager
National Insurance Company Ltd.,
office at No.63, Rasi Plaza,
west Pradahkshinam Road,
Karur.
__________
Page 1 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 10:21:56 am )
CMA(MD) No. 1236 of 2023 and
CROS.OBJ.(MD).No.15 of 2024
4. S.Manikandan
S/o.Sathapillai,
Kannimarpalayam,
Landaakottai,
Dindigul.
..Respondent(s)
CROS.OBJ(MD) No. 15 of 2024
Minor.Saravanan
rep by his next friend his father Kandasamy,
1-145, Veeriyapatti,
Kaniyalampatti,
Manjanaickenpatti,
Karur.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Branch Manager
Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd.,
C-142, First Floor Jayashri Towers,
6th Cross,
Thilai Nagar,
Trichy.
2. Sri Ganesh Murugan Blue metals
No.268, Puthukkanalli,
Karuduyampalayam post,
Aravakurichi Taluk,
Karur-639 111
3. The Branch Manager
National Insurance Company ltd.,
No.63, Rasi Plaza,
West Pradhakshinam Road,
Karur-639 002
4. S.Manikandan
S/o.Sathapillai,
Kannimarpalayam,
Landaakottai,
Dindigul-624 620
..Respondent(s)
__________
Page 2 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 10:21:56 am )
CMA(MD) No. 1236 of 2023 and
CROS.OBJ.(MD).No.15 of 2024
CMA(MD) No. 1236 of 2023
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act to set aside the decree and judgment in MCOP No.175 of
2020 dated 21.04.2023 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
(Chief Judicial Magistrate), Karur.
CROS.OBJ(MD) No. 15 of 2024
PRAYER: Cross objection filed under Order XLI Rule 22 of Civil
Procedure Code. to allow this Cross Objection and modify the judgment
and decree dated 21.04.2023 in M.C.O.P.No.175 of 2020 on the file of
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karur and
enhance the compensation amount.
CMA(MD) No. 1236 of 2023
For Appellant(s): Mr.N.Shyllappakalyan
For Respondent(s): Mr.N.Sudhagar Nagaraj
For R1
Mr.J.S.Murali
For R3
For R-2 and R-4 – No Appearance
CROS OBJ(MD).No.15 of 2024
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Sudhagar Nagaraj
For R-1 : Mr.N.Shylappakalyan
For R-3 : Mr.J.S.Murali
__________
Page 3 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 10:21:56 am )
CMA(MD) No. 1236 of 2023 and
CROS.OBJ.(MD).No.15 of 2024
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Common Judgment of the Court was made by Abdul Quddhose J.)
C.M.A.(MD).No.1236 of 2023 has been filed challenging the
impugned award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief
Judicial Magistrate), Karur, in MCOP.No.175 of 2020 dated 21.04.2023.
2. The appellant / Insurance Company, has challenged the
impugned award, questioning its liability to pay compensation to the first
respondent / claimant. According to the appellant / Insurance Company,
the first respondent / claimant sustained injuries only as a result of the
accident caused by the vehicle owned by the second respondent and
insured with the third respondent / Insurance Company. According to the
appellant / Insurance Company, there was no pleading in the claim
petition filed by the first respondent / claimant that the vehicle insured
with the appellant was responsible for the cause of the accident, which
resulted in the first respondent sustaining injuries.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant / Insurance
Company also drew the attention of this Court to the claim petition filed
by the first respondent / claimant before the Tribunal and would submit
that, even as per the claim petition, the appellant / Insurance Company
__________
Page 4 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 10:21:56 am )
CMA(MD) No. 1236 of 2023 and
CROS.OBJ.(MD).No.15 of 2024
was arrayed as a respondent only as a formal party. Therefore, the
learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the
Tribunal had erroneously fixed 50% contributory negligence on the part
of the driver of the vehicle insured with the appellant / Insurance
Company, which is incorrect. According to him, the entire liability ought
to have been fixed on the third respondent / Insurance Company, which
had insured the vehicle owned by the second respondent.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would also
submit that the appellant was taken by surprise when P.W.4, during
cross-examination, deposed for the first time that the driver of the vehicle
insured with the appellant was also responsible for the accident.
Therefore, he would submit that the appellant was not given any
opportunity to dispute the evidence of P.W.4 by filing a counter statement
denying that the driver of the vehicle insured with the appellant was not
responsible for the cause of the accident. The Tribunal had erroneously
fixed 50% contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle
insured with the appellant, instead of fixing the entire liability on the third
respondent / Insurance Company, which had insured the vehicle
belonging to the second respondent and whose driver was solely
responsible for the cause of the accident. The appellant / Insurance
Company has not challenged the quantum of compensation awarded by
__________
Page 5 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 10:21:56 am )
CMA(MD) No. 1236 of 2023 and
CROS.OBJ.(MD).No.15 of 2024
the Tribunal to the first respondent / claimant under the impugned award.
They have only questioned their liability to pay compensation to the first
respondent / claimant as per the impugned award. As according to them,
it is only the third respondent / Insurance Company which is alone liable
to pay compensation to the first respondent / claimant.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the third
respondent / Insurance Company would submit that only based on the
deposition of P.W.4 (the eye-witness), the Tribunal has rightly held that
there was contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle
insured with the appellant as well and has rightly fixed the contributory
negligence on the driver of the vehicle insured with the appellant at 50%.
He has also relied upon the very same judgment which was relied upon
by the Tribunal, namely, the decision reported in 2022 ACJ 980 in the
case of the Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Selvi Sudarsan and Others, in support of his contention that
the Tribunal has rightly fixed 50% contributory negligence on the part of
the driver of the vehicle insured with the appellant / Insurance Company.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent / claimant
would submit that the first respondent / claimant has also filed a Cross
__________
Page 6 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 10:21:56 am )
CMA(MD) No. 1236 of 2023 and
CROS.OBJ.(MD).No.15 of 2024
Objection Petition in Cros.Obj.(MD).No.15 of 2024 before this Court,
seeking for enhancement of compensation. According to the learned
counsel appearing for the claimant, the Tribunal has erroneously failed to
award compensation to the first respondent under various other heads and
therefore, this Court will have to enhance the compensation as prayed for
by the claimant in Cros.Obj.(MD).No.15 of 2024. It is also submitted by
the first respondent / claimant that, subsequent to the filing of this appeal,
50% of the compensation amount deposited before the Tribunal was
permitted to be withdrawn by the first respondent / claimant by the
Tribunal.
Discussion:
7. The following are the undisputed facts:
a. In the claim petition filed by the first respondent / claimant
before the Tribunal, the appellant / Insurance Company was arrayed as a
respondent only as a formal party and no claim was made against them.
b. Only during the time of cross-examination of P.W.4 (the eye
witness to the accident), P.W.4 deposed that the driver of the vehicle
insured with the appellant / Insurance Company was also responsible for
the cause of the accident.
__________
Page 7 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 10:21:56 am )
CMA(MD) No. 1236 of 2023 and
CROS.OBJ.(MD).No.15 of 2024
c. The Tribunal, only based on the evidence of P.W.4, has come to
the conclusion that the driver of the vehicle insured with the appellant
was also responsible for the cause of the accident.
d. The FIR was registered only against the driver of the vehicle
insured with the third respondent / Insurance Company and not against
the driver of the vehicle insured with the appellant.
8. The appellant / Insurance Company has challenged the
impugned award on the ground that, without there being any pleading
against the driver of the vehicle insured with the appellant, the Tribunal
has erroneously made the appellant / Insurance Company also liable to
pay compensation.
9. From the undisputed facts referred to supra, we find that the
appellant has been taken by surprise when only during the cross-
examination of P.W.4 (the eye-witness), they had come to know that the
first respondent / claimant is also making a claim against the appellant /
Insurance Company for the injuries sustained by him as a result of the
accident.
__________
Page 8 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 10:21:56 am )
CMA(MD) No. 1236 of 2023 and
CROS.OBJ.(MD).No.15 of 2024
10. The appellant did not file a counter statement before the
Tribunal denying its liability to pay compensation, as the appellant was
arrayed only as a formal party at the first instance in the claim petition
filed by the first respondent / claimant. The claim was only made against
the third respondent / Insurance Company and the owner of the vehicle
insured with the third respondent.
11. To unearth the truth, the appellant / Insurance Company should
have been permitted to file a comprehensive counter statement denying
the negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle insured with the
appellant in the accident which resulted in the first respondent / claimant
sustaining injuries. Admittedly, as seen from the evidence available on
record, the appellant / Insurance Company has not been granted an
opportunity to defend the claim made against it by the first respondent /
claimant, as it was only during the cross-examination of P.W.4 (the eye-
witness to the accident) that the appellant / Insurance Company came to
know that the first respondent / claimant was also seeking compensation
from them for the injuries sustained in the accident.
12. The first respondent / claimant is also seeking for enhancement
of compensation before this Court as he has also filed a Cross Objection
Petition in Cros.Obj.(MD).No.15 of 2024. According to the first
__________
Page 9 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 10:21:56 am )
CMA(MD) No. 1236 of 2023 and
CROS.OBJ.(MD).No.15 of 2024
respondent / claimant, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is in-
adequate and the Tribunal has failed to award compensation under certain
heads. The first respondent / claimant seeks for enhancement of
compensation up to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/- before this Court.
13. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the third
respondent / Insurance Company, which was also relied upon by the very
same Insurance Company before the Tribunal and considered by the
Tribunal, is not relevant to the facts of the instant case. The said decision
did not involve a case in which the Insurance Company against whom
liability was fixed had been arrayed only as a formal party in the claim
petition, as in the instant case.
14. In the instant case, as seen from the claim petition filed by the
first respondent / claimant, the appellant / Insurance Company was
arrayed as a respondent only as a formal party. In the decision relied
upon by the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent reported
in 2022 ACJ 980 , the Insurance Company concerned was not a formal
party to the claim petition, whereas, in the instant case, the appellant /
Insurance Company was arrayed only as a formal party by the first
respondent / claimant in the claim petition. The facts, are therefore,
__________
Page 10 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 10:21:56 am )
CMA(MD) No. 1236 of 2023 and
CROS.OBJ.(MD).No.15 of 2024
different. However, the Tribunal erroneously relied upon the said
decision and fixed liability on both the appellant / Insurance Company
and the third respondent / Insurance Company to pay compensation to the
first respondent / claimant. The matter requires further consideration.
Since the contentions raised by the appellant in this appeal were not
considered by the Tribunal in the impugned award and since the appellant
was not granted sufficient opportunity to raise all the defences available
to them under law with regard to the claim of the first respondent /
claimant for payment of compensation, the matter necessarily has to be
remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration on merits and in
accordance with law.
15. But, at the same time, the accident victim, namely, the first
respondent / claimant, cannot be made to suffer on account of the dispute
between the two Insurance Companies with regard to their respective
liabilities to pay compensation, particularly when neither Insurance
Company has challenged the quantum of compensation awarded to the
first respondent / claimant as per the impugned award in this appeal. The
third respondent / Insurance Company has also not filed any separate
appeal challenging the impugned award passed by the Tribunal. In the
crossfire between the appellant and the third respondent / Insurance
Company, the first respondent / claimant should not be made to suffer.
__________
Page 11 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 10:21:56 am )
CMA(MD) No. 1236 of 2023 and
CROS.OBJ.(MD).No.15 of 2024
16. Since the issue raised by the appellant needs further
consideration, we deem it fit to remand the matter back to the Tribunal
for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law. The first
respondent / claimant is permitted to file an appropriate application
before the Tribunal seeking payment out of the award amount lying to the
credit of the MCOP before the Tribunal and on such application being
filed, the Tribunal shall order for payment out of the money lying to its
credit in accordance with the directions issued earlier by the Tribunal in
the impugned award, subject to the safeguards applicable to the first
respondent / claimant, who is a minor. On payment of the said amount,
the Tribunal shall decide the MCOP afresh with regard to liability,
namely as to whether the appellant / Insurance Company is liable to pay
compensation to the first respondent / claimant. If the Tribunal decides
that the entire liability is on the part of the third respondent / Insurance
Company, the Tribunal shall issue appropriate directions requiring the
third respondent / Insurance Company to reimburse the appellant for the
amount deposited by the appellant pursuant to the impugned award, to the
extent warranted by such determination. In the vice-versa, if the Tribunal
finds that the appellant / Insurance Company is also equally responsible
to pay compensation to the first respondent / claimant, it shall determine
__________
Page 12 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 10:21:56 am )
CMA(MD) No. 1236 of 2023 and
CROS.OBJ.(MD).No.15 of 2024
the extent of such liability in accordance with law. With regard to the
enhancement of compensation sought for by the first respondent /
claimant before this Court through Cros.Obj.(MD).No.15 of 2024, the
said issue is also left open for the Tribunal to decide and the first
respondent / claimant is also permitted to let in oral and documentary
evidence in support of his contention seeking for enhancement of
compensation.
17. We are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the first
respondent's claim before this Court seeking for enhancement of
compensation as it is left open to the Tribunal to decide based on the
evidence available on record before the Tribunal. The first respondent /
claimant has been permitted to withdraw the compensation amount as per
the directions issued under the impugned award. We deem it fit to direct
the Tribunal to dispose of MCOP.No.175 of 2020 pursuant to the order of
remand passed by us, within the time frame to be fixed by this Court.
18. For the foregoing reasons, in view of the fact that the
appellant / Insurance Company was not granted sufficient opportunity to
raise its defence with regard to its liability as fixed by the Tribunal under
the impugned award, the impugned award dated 21.04.2023 made in
MCOP No.175 of 2020 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
(Chief Judicial Magistrate), Karur, is hereby set aside and the matter is
__________
Page 13 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 10:21:56 am )
CMA(MD) No. 1236 of 2023 and
CROS.OBJ.(MD).No.15 of 2024
remanded back to the very same Tribunal for fresh consideration on
merits and in accordance with law, by providing sufficient opportunity to
all the parties concerned to let in oral and documentary evidence and the
Tribunal is directed to dispose of MCOP.No.175 of 2020 on merits and in
accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. The first respondent / claimant is
permitted to file an appropriate application seeking for payment out as
per the directions issued by the Tribunal under the impugned award and
on such application being filed, the Tribunal shall also pass appropriate
orders for payment out in favour of the first respondent / claimant, subject
to the applicable safeguards concerning the minor. On determination by
the Tribunal as to the liability of the Insurance Company to pay
compensation, the Tribunal shall also pass suitable directions in
accordance with such determination, directing the Insurance Company
held liable to reimburse the other Insurance Company, if any, which has
paid the compensation amount in the very same order.
19. Accordingly, the impugned award in MCOP.No.175 of 2020
dated 21.04.2023 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief
Judicial Magistrate), Karur, is hereby set aside and the matter is
remanded back to the very same Tribunal for fresh consideration as per
the aforesaid directions.
__________
Page 14 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 10:21:56 am )
CMA(MD) No. 1236 of 2023 and
CROS.OBJ.(MD).No.15 of 2024
20. Accordingly, C.M.A.(MD).No.1236 of 2023 and Cros.Obj.
(MD).No.15 of 2024 stand disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(A.Q.,J.) (R.P.L.,J.)
27-10-2026
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
TSG
__________
Page 15 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 10:21:56 am )
CMA(MD) No. 1236 of 2023 and
CROS.OBJ.(MD).No.15 of 2024
To
The Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Karur.
__________
Page 16 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 10:21:56 am )
CMA(MD) No. 1236 of 2023 and
CROS.OBJ.(MD).No.15 of 2024
ABDUL QUDDHOSE J.
AND
RAJNISH PATHIYIL J.
TSG
CMA(MD) No. 1236 of 2023
AND
CROS.OBJ(MD) NO. 15 OF 2024,CMP(MD) NO. 11462 OF
2025,CMP(MD) NO. 16318 OF 2023
27-10-2026
__________
Page 17 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 10:21:56 am )