Madras High CourtCivil LawCivil Procedure and Evidence

Madras HC Upholds 75:25 Liability For Fatal Crash After Van Hit Parked Lorry, Orders Its Insurer To Deposit ₹19.11 Lakh Plus 7.5% Interest

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTDv.KOKILA VANI

Madras HC Upholds 75:25 Liability For Fatal Crash After Van Hit Parked Lorry, Orders Its Insurer To Deposit ₹19.11 Lakh Plus 7.5% Interest. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD vs KOKILA VANI. Madras High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

Whether the Tribunal’s apportionment of negligence—75% to the Eicher van’s driver and 25% to the lorry’s driver—warranted interference.

The court held

The appeal was dismissed, and the Tribunal’s findings and award were left undisturbed.

It also directed

Under the corrected operative order, the appellant insurer was directed to deposit 75% of the compensation—Rs.19,11,900—with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition until deposit, within six weeks; amounts already deposited were to be adjusted, and the claimants were permitted to withdraw the amount on application.

01Facts

Athipathi Rangan died in a collision on 18 May 2016 while travelling in an Eicher van to deliver plants. The van struck the rear of a lorry parked on the highway.

¶ 2–12

His dependants brought a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

¶ 2–12

The Tribunal attributed 75% negligence to the van’s driver and 25% to the lorry’s driver, and awarded compensation of Rs.25,49,200.

¶ 2–12

The van’s insurer appealed, disputing the apportionment of negligence and the compensation assessed.

¶ 2–12

02Issues

i.Whether the Tribunal’s apportionment of negligence—75% to the Eicher van’s driver and 25% to the lorry’s driver—warranted interference.

¶ 12–16, 22–23

ii.Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of compensation, including its treatment of income, dependency, and multiplier, warranted interference.

¶ 15–16, 24–25

03Law Applied

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for an appeal against an award of a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, while Section 166 provides the basis for a claim arising from a motor-vehicle accident.

¶ 2, 11

In assessing compensation for death, the Court applied the principles in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation concerning deduction for personal and living expenses and selection of the multiplier, and referred to National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi in relation to future prospects.

¶ 2, 11, 24–25

The Court also considered the evidence concerning each driver’s conduct in assessing the Tribunal’s apportionment of negligence.

¶ 19–23

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173Section 166

04Reasoning

The Court found the 75:25 apportionment supported by the evidence, including the Eicher van driver’s account that he saw the parked lorry and collided with its rear, and the FIR; it therefore declined to disturb the Tribunal’s finding.

¶ 19–23

For quantum, the claimed salary of Rs.20,000 per month was not substantiated by examining the employer or certificate issuer, so the Tribunal’s notional income of Rs.13,000 per month was upheld.

¶ 24–25

The Court also upheld the one-fourth deduction for personal expenses and the multiplier of 15 for the deceased, aged 38, finding no basis to interfere with the compensation award.

¶ 24–25

05Holding

The appeal was dismissed, and the Tribunal’s findings and award were left undisturbed.

¶ 26

Under the corrected operative order, the appellant insurer was directed to deposit 75% of the compensation—Rs.19,11,900—with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition until deposit, within six weeks; amounts already deposited were to be adjusted, and the claimants were permitted to withdraw the amount on application.

correction order paras. 2–4
Madras High Court

Original Court PDF

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTDvsKOKILA VANI

Madras High Court · October 28, 2026

Click to open original judgment

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

Click to open original judgment