Madras High Court
Transport, Maritime, and Aviation LawInsurance Law

An interested driver’s testimony alone cannot displace negligence established by eyewitness evidence.

The manger (Legal TP Claims) vs PREMA

Madras High CourtJUDGMENT: October 05, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
An interested driver’s testimony alone cannot displace negligence established by eyewitness evidence.. The manger (Legal TP Claims) vs PREMA. Madras High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

On 10 May 2021, Sankar was fatally injured when a container lorry allegedly struck his car, which was stopped on the extreme left-side mud road. His dependants sought compensation, and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tindivanam, awarded them ₹27,10,000 with interest at 7.5% per annum.

Source reference: pp. 2–3

The insurer appealed, challenging the finding of negligence and the quantum of compensation. The claimants relied on the FIR and an eyewitness; the insurer relied on the lorry driver’s testimony.

Source reference: pp. 2–6
02

Issues

1. Whether the Tribunal’s finding that the lorry driver was negligent, and its rejection of contributory negligence by the deceased, warranted interference.

Source reference: pp. 3–4, 6

2. Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of compensation, including its adoption of ₹15,000 as the deceased’s monthly income, warranted interference.

Source reference: pp. 3–4, 6
03

Law Applied

The appeal was brought under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which provides for an appeal against an award of a Claims Tribunal.

Source reference: p. 2

The Court applied no specific precedent or separately identified statutory test in its reasoning. It assessed the negligence finding by reference to the evidence on record, including the FIR, eyewitness testimony, and the absence of independent evidence supporting the insurer’s challenge; it reviewed the compensation award for whether it warranted appellate interference.

Source reference: pp. 5–6
04

Reasoning

The Court upheld the negligence finding because the claimants produced the FIR and examined an eyewitness, while the insurer produced no independent eyewitness to support its challenge; the driver’s testimony alone was insufficient to establish negligence on the deceased’s part.

Source reference: p. 6

On quantum, the Court considered that the accident occurred in 2021 and found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal’s assessment of monthly income at ₹15,000 or its resulting award, which it considered just and reasonable.

Source reference: p. 6
05

Holding

The Court answered both issues against the insurer and dismissed the appeal.

It confirmed the Tribunal’s award of ₹27,10,000 with interest at 7.5% per annum, made no order as to costs, and closed the connected miscellaneous petition.

Source reference: p. 6
06

Acts & Sections Cited

1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.

Motor Vehicles Act, 19881

Madras High Court

Original Court PDF

The manger (Legal TP Claims)vsPREMA

Madras High Court · October 05, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment