M/s. United India Insurance Co.Ltd., vs LAKSHMI

CMA No. 918 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
CMA No. 918 of 2022
CNR:{HCMA011690572021}
AND
CMP NO. 6840 OF 2022
M/s. United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,
Office at 22B, P.R. Sundaram Iyer St,
Dharmapuri 636 701. .. Appellant(s)
Vs.
1. Lakshmi
2. Santhi
3. Revathi
4. Parthiban
5. P. Chinnasamy ..Respondent(s)
Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 21.02.2020 made in
MCOP.No.497 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Special District Court, Dharmapuri.
For Appellant(s) : Mr.S.Arun Kumar
For R1 to R4 : Mr.M.Selvam
For R5 : Notice not ready
JUDGMENT
Unsuccessful appellant/Insurance Company has preferred the present
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, challenging the negligence fixed on their part.
__________
Page1 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 11:37:01 am )

CMA No. 918 of 2022
2. The first claimant is the wife, the second and third claimants are the
daughters, and the fourth claimant is the son of the deceased Lakshmanan. They
have filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
seeking compensation for the death of one Lakshmanan, in a road accident.
3. According to the claimants, on 23.06.2015, the deceased Lakshmanan
travelled in the first respondent’s lorry bearing Registration No. TN 58 F 0716
as a loadman and sugarcane-cutting coolie from Mandiya to Kadagathur. While
the lorry was proceeding along the Hosur–Rayakottai Road, near the G.P.T.
petrol bunk, the driver allegedly drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent
manner, turned it towards the right to proceed to Subash Hotel and applied the
brake suddenly. Consequently, the deceased, who was sitting on the left side of
the cabin, was thrown out of the lorry and run over by its wheels, sustaining
fatal injuries.
4. It is the further case of the claimants that the deceased was aged about
48 years at the time of the accident and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month.
5. The first respondent, being the owner of the offending vehicle and
remained ex parte before the Tribunal.
__________
Page2 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 11:37:01 am )

CMA No. 918 of 2022
6. The second respondent/Insurance Company filed a counter affidavit
denying the manner of the accident and the involvement of the insured lorry. It
was contended that the accident had not occurred in the manner alleged by the
claimants and that the complaint had been lodged belatedly with a view to
making an unlawful gain. According to the Insurance Company, the deceased
had travelled in the lorry as a passenger and, when the lorry was stopped for the
occupants to have food, the deceased went out along with the others. While
returning, he was allegedly hit by an unknown two-wheeler and sustained
injuries. He was thereafter taken to the Government Hospital, Hosur. The
Insurance Company further contended that the first respondent had violated the
policy conditions by permitting passengers to travel in a goods vehicle and,
therefore, disputed its liability to indemnify the owner.
7. Before the Tribunal, the fourth claimant was examined as P.W.1 and an
eyewitness namely Mr.Thiyagarajan was examined as PW2, Exs.P1 to P17 were
marked. On behalf of the second respondent, the owner of the lorry was
examined as R.W.1 and one Vadivel was examined as RW2 and Exs.R1 to R4
were marked.
8. Upon appreciation of the evidence adduced on either side, the Tribunal
held that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the
__________
Page3 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 11:37:01 am )

CMA No. 918 of 2022
driver of the first respondent’s lorry. The Tribunal awarded compensation under
various heads as hereunder:-
S.No. Heads of Compensation Amount awarded
by the Tribunal
1 Compensation for pecuniary loss Rs.10,96,875/-
2 Loss of consortium for 1 to 4
claimants
Rs. 1,60,000/-
3 Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-
4 Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/-
Total Rs.12,86,875/-
9. Aggrieved over the same, the Insurance Company has preferred the
present appeal.
10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company
would submit that the Tribunal erred in fastening liability upon the appellant,
despite its specific defence that the insured lorry was not involved in the
accident. The Tribunal failed to note that if the accident has occurred as alleged
in the claim petition ,there would not have been any necessity to lodge a belated
complaint. It is further contended that the Tribunal failed to consider that there
was no necessity for the fifth respondent, being the owner of the vehicle to file a
sworn affidavit against the deceased, particularly when the vehicle was covered
by a valid Insurance policy. According to the appellant, the deceased sustained
__________
Page4 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 11:37:01 am )

CMA No. 918 of 2022
injuries after being hit by an unknown two-wheeler and not due to any
negligence on the part of the lorry driver.
11. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4
/claimants would submit that the Tribunal, upon proper appreciation of the oral
and documentary evidence, rightly concluded that the accident had occurred due
to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver. It is further submitted that
the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and does not warrant
interference by this Court.
12. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
13. According to the claimants, on 23.06.2015, the deceased was
travelling in the first respondent’s lorry as a loadman. When the lorry was
proceeding along the Hosur–Rayakottai Road, near the G.P.T Petrol bunk, the
driver suddenly turned the lorry towards the right and applied the brakes,
causing the deceased to be thrown out and run over by it. The appellant, on the
other hand, relies upon the version put forward by R.W.1, the owner of the
lorry, that the deceased was hit by an unknown two-wheeler while returning
after having food. However, the evidence of RW1 establishes that the deceased
had travelled in the lorry along with other persons engaged in sugarcane-cutting
__________
Page5 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 11:37:01 am )

CMA No. 918 of 2022
work. Thus, the deceased’s presence in the lorry immediately before the
occurrence is not in dispute.
14. It is relevant to note that the first respondent, being the owner of the
lorry, remained ex parte before the Tribunal. However, he was examined as
RW1 on the respondents’ side. In his evidence, he stated that, on the date of the
accident, the deceased Lakshmanan had travelled in the lorry as a load man for
the purpose of cutting sugarcane. He further stated that the lorry had been
stopped about 500 metres away from the G.P.T. petrol bunk for the occupants to
have food and that the deceased, the driver Mani, Marimuthu and Sakkarai had
gone to have food, while he stayed in the lorry. He further stated that
Marimuthu informed him that the deceased had been hit by an unknown two-
wheeler while returning and that the deceased was taken to the hospital in the
two wheeler itself by its riders. R.W.1 also stated that he had seen the deceased
in the hospital and admitted him to the Government Hospital, Hosur.
15. However, Ex.R3 - copy of the Accident Register issued by the
Government Hospital, Hosur, reveals that the persons who admitted the injured
were shown as two unknown persons. No satisfactory explanation has been
offered as to why R.W.1’s name was not recorded therein if, as claimed by him,
he had admitted the deceased to the hospital. Further, the Accident Register
does not contain any observation regarding the smell of alcohol or the deceased
__________
Page6 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 11:37:01 am )

CMA No. 918 of 2022
being under the influence of alcohol. These circumstances do not support the
version put forward by the appellant.
16. It is relevant to note that according to the evidence of RW1, the
deceased had not sustained injuries in the accident as claimed by the second
respondent/Insurance Company. However, RW1 has not chosen to lodge a
complaint against the rider of the two wheeler, which allegedly caused the
accident. It is also relevant to note that the owner of the lorry was not involved
in the accident and the first respondent could have entered appearance and filed
his counter setting forth his defences, if the lorry was not involved in the
accident. However, none of the persons who had allegedly accompanied the
deceased was examined on the appellant’s side to substantiate this version. If
the deceased had been hit by an unknown two-wheeler, it would ordinarily be
expected that the persons accompanying him would have made some effort to
ascertain the identity of the rider or note the registration number of the vehicle.
No explanation is forthcoming for their failure to do so. Further, the lorry was
not sent for inspection by the Motor Vehicle Inspector, and the driver of the
lorry, Mani, who would have been the best person to explain the circumstances
of the occurrence, was not examined. The conduct of the first respondent in
remaining ex parte before the Tribunal, despite claiming that his lorry was not
involved in the accident, also remains unexplained. The mere fact that the
police filed a final report closing the case as undetectable does not conclude the
__________
Page7 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 11:37:01 am )

CMA No. 918 of 2022
issue of negligence before the Tribunal. The question must be decided
independently on the evidence available, applying the standard of
preponderance of probabilities.
17. The evidence of P.W2 supports the claimants’ case that the accident
occurred due to the negligent act of the lorry driver. The averments in the FIR
also indicate that the deceased sustained injuries in the accident when the driver
of the first respondent ‘s lorry suddenly applied the brakes, causing the
deceased to be thrown out of the vehicle and sustained head injuries.
18. A perusal of Ex.P2- Post-mortem certificate reveals that the deceased
had sustained the following external injuries :-
i) 2 x 2 cm on outer aspect of upper part of left thigh
ii) 1 x 1cm on left shoulder.
iii) 1x1cm on inner aspect of left knee.
iv) 1x0.5cm on left little toe.
v) 0.5x0.5cm on left big toe.
nd
vi) 0.5x 0.5cm on left 2 toe.
rd
vii) 0.5 x 0.5cm on left 3 toe.
__________
Page8 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 11:37:01 am )

CMA No. 918 of 2022
19. It is also relevant to note that the external injures sustained by the
deceased were confined to the upper part of left thigh, left shoulder, left knee,
and left toes alone. The evidence of P.W2 read along with Ex.P2 - Post-mortem
Certificate supports the claimants’case that the deceased was sitting on the left
side of the corner of the cabin, and sustained fatal injuries when he was thrown
out following the sudden turning and braking. The alternative explanation that
he was hit by an unknown two-wheeler has not been satisfactorily established.
On an overall assessment of the evidence, this Court finds no ground to interfere
with the Tribunal’s finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and
negligent driving of the first respondent’s lorry.
20. As regards the quantum of compensation, considering that the
deceased was aged about 48 years at the time of the accident based on the post-
mortem certificate, the Tribunal, in the absence of proof of income, fixed his
notional monthly income at Rs.7,500/-. As per the ratio laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay
Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, added 25% towards future prospects, the
Tribunal deducted 1/4th of his income towards personal and living expenses and
adopted the multiplier of ‘13’. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal
under the head of pecuniary loss appears to be proper and reasonable. Hence,
the award passed by the Tribunal does not warrant any interference.
__________
Page9 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 11:37:01 am )

CMA No. 918 of 2022
21. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no merit in the
appeal. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed confirming
dated 21.02.2020 passed in MCOP No.497 of 2015 by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal/Special District Court, Dharmapuri. There shall be no order as
to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
27-10-2026
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
KKD
To
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Special District Court, Dharmapuri.
__________
Page10 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 11:37:01 am )

CMA No. 918 of 2022
M.JOTHIRAMAN J.
KKD
CMA No. 918 of 2022
AND
CMP NO. 6840 OF 2022
27-10-2026
__________
Page11 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 11:37:01 am )