United India Insurance Compa vs Pasupathi,
- Court
- Madras High Court
CMA(MD) No. 494 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 12-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJNISH PATHIYIL
CMA(MD) No. 494 of 2022
CNR:{HCMD010880102021} and
CMP.(MD).No.4336 of 2022
United India Insurance Company Limited,
Seethalakshmi Complex, Madurai Thirunagar,
Madurai District.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Pasupathi,
W/o. Mathiaraja, Door No. 4/272, Ayyanar
Colony, Siddhurajapuram, Sivakasi Taluk,
Virudhunagar District.
2. Vasantha,
W/o. Ramesh, Door No. 14, Vallal Oritheru,
Maraimalai Nagar, Kanchipuram District.
3. Senthilkumar,
S/o. (Late). Mathiaraja, Door No. 176,
Kulamankulam Main Road, Sellur, Madurai,
Madurai District.
4. Suresh,
S/o. Mathiaraja, Door No. 4/272, Ayyanar
Colony, Siddhurajapuram, Sivakasi Taluk,
Virudhunagar District.
5. Petchiammal,
W/o. Otchathevar, Door No. 4/272, Ayyanar
Colony, Siddhurajapuram, Sivakasi Taluk,
Virudhunagar District.
__________
Page 1 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 03:56:13 pm )
CMA(MD) No. 494 of 2022
6. Deivam,
S/o. Natarajan, Pandiarajapuram Main Road,
Bethaniapuram, Madurai District.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicle Act to set aside the Judgment and Decree made in M.C.O.P. No.
151 of 2012 dated 19.09.2018 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Sivakasi and allow the appeal with costs
and thus render justice.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.J.S.Murali
For Respondent(s): Mr.M.Jegadeesh Pandian
For R1 and R2
R3 – No Appearance
R4 And R5 - Tapal Returned -
Unclaimed
R6 – Exparte
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by Abdul Quddhose J.)
This appeal has been filed challenging the impugned award dated
19.09.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sivakasi in
M.C.O.P.No.151 of 2012.
2. Under the impugned award, the appellant / Insurance Company
has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.30,40,630/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs
Forty Thousand Six Hundred and Thirty only) to the respondents /
claimants as compensation for the death of Mathiyaraja caused by a
vehicle insured with the appellant.
__________
Page 2 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 03:56:13 pm )
CMA(MD) No. 494 of 2022
3. The appellant / Insurance Company has challenged the
impugned award on the following grounds:
a). Erroneously, the Tribunal has directed the appellant / Insurance
Company to pay the compensation, despite the fact that the insured was
himself the driver of the insured vehicle. Since the insured was not a
third party, the Tribunal ought not to have awarded compensation under
the impugned award by directing the appellant / Insurance Company to
pay the same to the respondents / claimants.
b). The necessary badge endorsement was not available for the
insured vehicle at the time of the accident.
c). There is no nexus between the accident and the cause of the
death of the accident victim, since the accident had occurred few months
prior to the date of death of the accident victim.
d). The deceased was not wearing a helmet at the time of the
accident and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have fixed contributory
negligence on his part. However, erroneously, no contributory
negligence was fixed on the deceased by the Tribunal.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant drew the
attention of this Court to the following authorities:
__________
Page 3 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 03:56:13 pm )
CMA(MD) No. 494 of 2022
a). The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2020 (2)
TN MAC 445 (SC) rendered in Beli Ram Vs. Rajinder Kumar and
another, in support of his contention that if the insured himself is the
driver of the insured vehicle, the question of directing the Insurance
Company to pay compensation does not arise.
b). The decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of
the Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited Vs.
Rajamani and Others reported in 2026 ACJ 1030 , in support of his
contention that contributory negligence ought to have been fixed on the
deceased, as he was not wearing a helmet at the time of the accident.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would also
submit that since the death of the victim took place on 03.12.2012,
whereas the accident happened on 24.05.2012, there is no nexus between
the accident and the cause of the death of the accident victim. The learned
counsel appearing for the appellant would also submit that the insured
vehicle did not have the requisite badge endorsement at the time of the
accident and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the
compensation.
__________
Page 4 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 03:56:13 pm )
CMA(MD) No. 494 of 2022
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent Nos.1 and 2 would reiterate the contents of the impugned
award and would submit that there is no merit in this appeal filed by the
Insurance Company.
7. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant
in Beliram's case (referred to supra) was rendered in a case involving
compensation payable to an employee under the Employees’
Compensation Act. On the other hand, we are dealing with a case
involving the compensation payable to the legal representatives of the
deceased motor accident victim. Admittedly, the deceased was a third
party to the insurance policy. The insured was also not examined as a
witness by the appellant / Insurance Company. The insurance policy is
taken by the owner of the vehicle, only to protect the owner's interest in
case the vehicle is involved in an accident and causes injury or death to a
third party. In the case on hand, the deceased victim was indeed a third
party. No authority has been placed by the learned counsel appearing for
the appellant in support of his contention that in respect of a motor
accident victim, if the insured himself was the driver, no compensation is
payable by the Insurance Company towards compensation payable to
dependants of a third party accident victim. Therefore, the decision relied
__________
Page 5 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 03:56:13 pm )
CMA(MD) No. 494 of 2022
upon by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in Beliram's case
has no applicability to the facts of the instant case. Therefore, the
dependants of the accident victim, who are the respondents / claimants,
have to be necessarily compensated by the appellant / Insurance
Company, as a valid insurance policy had been taken by the owner of the
lorry which caused the accident. The FIR was also registered only
against the lorry insured with the appellant / Insurance Company. The
Tribunal has rightly rejected the contentions of the appellant as seen from
the impugned award.
8. The second contention raised by the appellant / Insurance
Company is that there is no nexus between the accident and the cause of
death of the victim. However, as seen from the evidence placed on
record before the Tribunal, the respondents / claimants have produced the
documents, namely, Ex.P.4 to Ex.P.18, to establish the nexus between the
injuries sustained in the accident and the death of the deceased. Only
based on the evidence available on record, the Tribunal has held that the
appellant / Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the
respondents / claimants.
9. As seen from the impugned award, a finding has been rendered
by the Tribunal that the owner of the vehicle (insured) was not possessing
__________
Page 6 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 03:56:13 pm )
CMA(MD) No. 494 of 2022
the necessary badge endorsement for driving a heavy vehicle lorry at the
time of the accident. However, the Tribunal has not granted pay and
recovery rights to the appellant / Insurance Company by directing them to
pay the compensation amount to the respondents / claimants and
thereafter, permitting them to recover the same from the owner of the
vehicle (insured). The relevant finding of the Tribunal with regard to the
non availability of the badge endorsement is reproduced hereunder:
“ tpgj;J ele;j Njjpapy; Nghf;Ftuj;J
thfdq;fis Xl;Ltjw;fhd Xl;Leh; cupkk;
GJg;gpf;fhky; ,Ue;jjhf mwpa KbfpwJ. Mdhy;
tpgj;jpd ; NghJ mtu ; yhhpia Xl;br ; nrd;Ws;shu;.
vdNt 2k; vjpu;kDjhuh; jug;gpy; Fwpg;gl;lgb tpgj;jpd;
NghJ mtUf;F Xl;Leh ; cupkk; ,y;iy vd
$wpAs;sJ Vw;Wf;nfhs;Sk;gbahf ,y;iy vd ,e;j
jPu;g;ghak ; fUJfpwJ. mt;thW 1k ; vjpu;kDjhuh;
tpgj;jpd ; NghJ Xl;Leh ; cupkk ; ngw;wpUe;jjhf
ep&gpf;fg;gl;Ls;s epiyapYk;> mth; ve;j fhg;gPL
tpjpKiwfisAk; kPwtpy;iy vd ep&gpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ.
vdNt 1> 2 vjpu;kDjhuh;fs ; jdpj;jdpahfNth>
$l;lhfNth kDjhuh;fSf;F ,og;gPL nfhLf;f
flikg;gl;lth;fs; vd jPu;T fz;L gpur;rid 2f;F
tpilaspf;fg;gLfpwJ.
”
10. Insofar as the non-wearing of a helmet by the accident victim is
concerned, which according to the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant enables fixation of contributory negligence on the part of the
__________
Page 7 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 03:56:13 pm )
CMA(MD) No. 494 of 2022
deceased, the said contention of the appellant cannot be accepted for the
following reasons:
a). No witness was examined by the appellant / Insurance
Company to establish that the accident victim was not wearing a helmet
at the time of the accident.
b).The respondents / claimants have also not admitted, as seen from
the evidence available on record, that the accident victim was not wearing
a helmet at the time of the accident.
c). There is no evidence adduced by the appellant / Insurance
Company to prove that the non-wearing of a helmet by the accident
victim resulted in or contributed to the death of the victim in the accident
involving the vehicle insured with the appellant.
d).The decision relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for
the appellant has no applicability to the facts of the instant case, since, in
that decision, there was conclusive evidence available on record to prove
that the accident victim was not wearing a helmet at the time of the
accident. But in the instant case, there is no conclusive evidence to
establish that the accident victim was not wearing a helmet at the time of
the accident.
__________
Page 8 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 03:56:13 pm )
CMA(MD) No. 494 of 2022
11. Therefore, the only error committed by the Tribunal under the
impugned award is the non-grant of pay and recovery rights to the
appellant / Insurance Company.
12. The appellant is also not challenging the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the impugned award.
13. For the foregoing reasons, excepting for modifying the award
by granting pay and recovery rights to the appellant / Insurance
Company, we do no find any infirmity in the other findings rendered by
the Tribunal or in the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal.
14. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of by
modifying the impugned award dated 19.09.2018 in M.C.O.P.No.151 of
2012 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Sub Court, Sivakasi, by
granting the pay and recovery rights to the appellant / Insurance
Company by permitting them to pay the compensation amount as
determined under the impugned award dated 19.09.2018 to the
respondent Nos.1 to 5 / claimants and recover the same from the insured /
sixth respondent. The appellant / Insurance Company is directed to
__________
Page 9 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 03:56:13 pm )
CMA(MD) No. 494 of 2022
deposit the entire award amount as per the impugned award to the credit
of M.C.O.P.No.151 of 2012, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal / Sub Court, Sivakasi, if not already deposited, within a period
of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such
deposit being made, the respondent Nos.1 to 5 / claimants are permitted
to withdraw the amount lying to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.151 of 2012,
on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Sub Court, Sivakasi,
as directed by the Tribunal under the impugned award 19.09.2018, by
filing appropriate application before the Tribunal. No costs.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(A.Q.,J.) (R.P.L.,J.)
12-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
TSG
To
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Sub Court, Sivakasi.
__________
Page 10 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 03:56:13 pm )
CMA(MD) No. 494 of 2022
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
AND
RAJNISH PATHIYIL, J.
TSG
CMA(MD) No. 494 of 2022
12-10-2026
__________
Page 11 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 03:56:13 pm )