Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd v. Gayathri

Judgment (Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.T.Asha J.) The Insurance Company, who is the 2nd respondent in the claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Chennai, (Chief Court of Small Causes) at Chennai in M.C.O.P.No.5239 of 2021, is the petitioner before this Court.

¶2For the sake of easy understanding, the parties are referred to in the same array as before the Tribunal. The petitioners are the wife, daughter and mother of the deceased Karthick. It is their case that on 18.11.2021 at about 18.00 hours when the deceased was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No.54 T 7042 and proceeding on KS Road, as he neared TJS Petrol Bunk, a lorry bearing registration No.TN 10 X 3969 coming in the same direction and driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle of the deceased, as a result of which the deceased had sustained grievous injuries and ultimately Page3 of 6 succumbed to the same. The lorry belonged to the 1st respondent and the 2nd respondent was the insurer of the offending vehicle. The petitioner had, therefore, sought compensation of a sum of Rs.49,00,000/-.

¶3The 1st respondent remained ex parte. The 2nd respondent had filed a counter statement inter alia denying the manner of the accident, the compensation claimed as also the mulcting of negligence on the driver of the 1st respondent's lorry.

¶4The petitioners had examined three witnesses as P.W1 to P.W3 and marked 26 documents. On the side of the 2nd respondent, one witness was examined as R.W.1 and one document was marked as Ex.R1.

¶5The Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, held that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the lorry driver and awarded a compensation of Rs.39,56,120/-. It is challenging this Award that the 2ndrespondent-Insurance Company is before this Court. Page4 of 6

¶6The main ground of challenge is with regard to negligence. The 2nd respondent would submit that the deceased had died due to a head injury. Had he worn a helmet, he would not have succumbed to the injuries. Therefore, it is his negligence that has caused the death.

¶7Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3.

¶8A perusal of the Award passed by the Tribunal would clearly show that the manner in which the accident had taken place has been recounted by P.W3-the eye witness. The eye-witness has clearly spoken to the fact that the lorry was driven in a rash and negligent manner and that it is this rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver that had caused the death of the deceased. The FIR has also implicated the driver of the 1st respondent's lorry. The 1st respondent has not challenged the contents of the F.I.R. The police authorities have also filed their final report. The said report, coupled with the evidence of P.W3, supports the finding of the Tribunal with regard to negligence. We see no reason to disagree with the Page5 of 6 said finding. Accordingly, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (P.T.A.,J.) (N.M.,J.) 13-08-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order SRN To

¶1The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

¶2The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court of Madras, Chennai. CMAoNo.o793oofo2026 P.T.ASHAoJ. AND N.MALAoJ. SRN CMAoNo.o793oofo2026 AND CMPoNO.o8514oOFo2026 13-08-2026 Page6oofo6

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 13-08-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA AND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE N. MALA AND CMP NO. 8514 OF 2026 Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd TP Cell No.6, Reliance House, Haddows Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 6. ..Appellant(s) Vs 1. Gayathri 2. Yakshita (Minor) (Minor Rep by Mother/NF 1st Respondent) 3. Kanmani 4. E. Munusamy ..Respondent(s) PRAYER:Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated 20.08.2024 made in MCOP No.5239 of 2021 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Court of Small Causes) at Chennai. Page2 of 6 For Appellant(s): Ms.R. Sree Vidhya For Respondent(s): Mr.U.Chithambaram Ror R1 To R3 R2- Minor rep by R1 Not ready in notice - R4