(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the award dated 28.07.2025 in MCOP.No.476 of 2022 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,Chennai (Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai.)
M. Jothiraman, J.
1. Unsuccessful Insurance Company has preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal as against the award dated 28.07.2025 passed in MCOP.No.476 of 2022 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,Chennai (Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai.
2. According to the claimants, who are the parents of the deceased Mr.Ruban Rajasekar, on 17.11.2020 at about 10.30 hours, the deceased was riding a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.TN 22 CZ 2091 and was proceeding along the Bangalore to Chennai National Highway Road, under 400 feet overbridge, at that time, a car bearing Reg.No.TN 23 CV 4806 driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased’s motorcycle. Due to the accident, he sustained fatal injuries and died on 18.11.2020. According to the claimants, the deceased was aged about 29 years and he was a Professor of Aeronautics and Engineering at Hindustan University, Padur and earning Rs.50,000/- per month.
3. The appellant Insurance Company / 2nd respondent therein has filed a counter affidavit, wherein it has been stated that the accused was caused due to the rash and negligent act of the deceased, who was riding the motorcycle without a helmet and the deceased did not have a valid driving licence and the deceased alone is responsible for the accident.
4. On the side of the claimants, the mother of the deceased / 2nd respondent herein, namely Tmt.Vasuki was examined as PW1, one Santhanakrishnan, Professor in Hindustan University was examined as PW2 and one Ponnarasu, an eye witness was examined as PW3 and Exs.P1 to P56 were marked. On the side of the respondents, neither any witness was examined nor any document was marked.
5. On appreciation of evidence adduced on either side, the Tribunal found that PW3, who is an eye-witness to the accident, clearly deposed that the car was proceeding on the National Highway near the centre median and the two wheeler itself dashed against right hand side of the car and thereby caused the accident. There is no contra evidence let in by the appellant. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car. As per Ex.P5- Insurance Policy, the 1st respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle, which was insured with the appellant herein and the policy was in force at the time of the accident. The Tribunal also concluded that the 1st respondent therein being the owner and the 2nd respondent therein, being the insurer of the offending vehicle jointly and severally liable to pay compensation for the death of their son.
6. Considering the evidence of PW2, who is a Professor of Hindustan University, who deposed about the deceased employee who was also working as Professor at Aeronautical Engineering at Hindustan University, Padur and as per Ex.P27- Pay slips of the deceased for the months of September, 2020 to October, 2020, the Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.35,000/- per month and arrived at a just and fair compensation by applying the ratio laid down in Smt.Sarala Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another [2009 (2) TNMAC 1 (SC)] and National Insurance Co. ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [AIR 2017 SC 5157], ordered total compensation of Rs.48,30,700/- under the following heads as under:
| Heads of Compensation | Amount awarded by this court (Rs.) |
| Loss of Income / DependencyRs.5,54,196 x 17 x 12 | 47,10,666 |
| Loss of Estate | 15,000 |
| Loss of ConsortiumRs.40,000 (each) x 2 | 80,000 |
| Funeral Expenses | 15,000 |
| Transportation charges including damages to personal belongings | 10,000 |
| TOTAL | 48,30,666(Rounded off) 48,30,700 |
7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the deceased had contributed to the cause of the accident and the resultant death by driving the vehicle without wearing helmet. The eye witness/ PW3 categorically deposed that the car was proceeding in close proximity to the centre median and the accident had occurred when the motorcycle collided with the left side of the car. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the deceased who had negligently driven the car in the middle of the highways and thereby contributed to the accident. The Tribunal ought to have fixed atleast 50% negligence on the deceased as he had driven the vehicle without having driving licence.
8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents / claimants would submit that though the appellants have claimed that the deceased did not possess valid licence at the time of the accident, they did not produce any document or examine any witness to that effect. The deceased was unmarried and therefore, the Tribunal deducted 50% towards personal expenses and awarded compensation following the settled legal principles of law and there is no infirmity in the award of compensation passed by the Tribunal. The learned counsel would further submit that the deceased was having Learner’s Licence (LLR) at the time of accident.
9. We have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the entire materials available on record.
10. PW3, who is an eye-witness to the accident, deposed that the deceased car was proceeding on the National Highway near the centre median and the two wheeler itself dashed against right hand side of the car and thereby the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car bearing Reg.No.TN 23 CV 4806. As per Ex.P1-FIR and Ex.P6- Final Report, which shows that the police has registered the case against the driver of the 1st respondent vehicle. On the appellant side, there is no contra evidence let in. According to the claimants, at the time of accident, the deceased was possessing LLR – Learner’s Licence and he drover the bike in a proper manner. There is no restriction that the person who possessed LLR to drive the motorcycle in the National Highways.
11. It is not the case of the respondents that the deceased drove the vehicle without any valid driving licence. It is not the case of the appellant that the person having LLR cannot have drive the vehicle on the road. Though it is contended that the person having LLR can drive a Vehicle, should have an instructor with them. It is does not disqualify a person from riding a vehicle. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that the deceased was not having valid driving licence at the time of accident, it cannot be taken into account. As per Ex5- Insurance Policy which shows that the 1st respondent / owner of the vehicle was insured with the appellant insurance company and the policy was in force at the time of accident. Considering the above aspect, the Tribunal held that the 1st respondent therein, being the owner of the vehicle and the appellant / insurer of the offending vehicle were jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the death for their son.
12. According to the claimants, the deceased was a Professor of Aeronautics and Engineering at Hindustan University, Padur, earning monthly income of Rs.50,000/-, to prove their claim, they have produced Ex.P27 – Pay Slips of the deceased for the months of September, 2020 and October, 2020. The claimants have chosen to examined PW2, who is a professor working in the said Hindustan University. Considering the salary slips produced on behalf of the claimants, the Tribunal has fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.35,000 p.m. Considering that the deceased was aged about 29 years at the time of accident, applying the Multiplier “17”, since the deceased was unmarried person 50% was deduced for his personal expenses.
13. The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company vehemently contended that at the time of accident, the deceased was not wearing helmet. However, in order to prove the case, they have not let in any evidence and no document was produced to that effect. It is relevant to note that the Tribunal did not even frame an issue on contributory negligence this Court is not a position to consider the arguments of the appellant (M.Nithya vs SBI Genral Insurance Company Limited 2025 SUPREME (SC) 1508) . In the case on the hand Admittedly, the appellant /Insurance Company did not let in any evidence to that effect nor insisted for framing of issue with regards to non - wearing of helmet. Therefore, this Court is of the view that merely making allegation in the counter affidavit without substantiating with acceptable evidence, the contention of the appellant cannot be taken into account. Therefore, we are in agreement with the findings of the Tribunal that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the car. It is to be noted that by applying the ration laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Smt.Sarala Verma case (cited supra) and Pranay Sethi case (cited supra), the Tribunal, the Multiple “17” was applied considering the age of the deceased being 29 years at the time of accident, after deducing income tax payable to the compensation, fixed Rs.5,54,196/- towards loss of income. Since the deceased was an unmarried person, 50% was deducted for personal expenses of the deceased and awarded compensation of Rs.47,10,666/- towards loss of Income / Dependency, which is just and fair. There is no infirmity in the award of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and finds no merit in this appeal.
14. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed, confirming the award award dated 28.07.2025 in MCOP.No.476 of 2022 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,Chennai (Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.