The Divisional Manager v. Lalitha

JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.Sathish Kumar J.) This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.130 of 2024 dated 05.06.2025 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Sub Court), Tiruvannamalai.

¶2The parties are referred to by their respective ranks before the Tribunal.

¶3It is the case of the claimants that on 22.09.2023 at about 12.10 p.m. when the deceased was going in a Hero Honda Splender Plus two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN 28 BW 5806 from Thellar towards Kilpennathur through Avalurpettai on the left extreme of the Tiruvannanmalai to Tindivanam road, a car bearing Registration No.UK 19 5430 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner from west to east direction hit the two wheeler of the deceased, as a result of which the deceased sustained injuries on the head and all over the body and despite treatment, he died. Hence, the wife, minor children and parents of the deceased have filed the claim petition.

¶3The first respondent remained ex parte before the Tribunal. The second respondent Insurance Company/appellant resisted the claim by filing a counter Page3 of 6 affidavit stating that their liability is subject to the validity of the Driving Licence of the Driver, R.C., permit and insurance coverage of the offending vehicle. It is further stated that the diver of the car belonging to the first respondent drove the car in a slow and cautious manner, at that time the deceased drove the two wheeler rash and negligent manner and suddenly crossed the road and caused the accident and hence, the second respondent is not liable to pay the compensation.

¶4Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants, PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P13 were marked and on the side of the respondents, no oral and documentary evidence were adduced.

¶5The Tribunal, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that only the driver of the offending vehicle drew the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the avocation of the deceased, by applying the multiplier and adding future prospects as per the dictum laid down in National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, awarded the compensation as follows: SI.No. Heads Amount (Rs.) Loss of Income Rs.63,91,872/- Loss of Consortium Rs.2,42,000/- Loss of Estate Rs.18,150/- Funeral Expenses Rs.18,150/- Total Rs.66,70,172/- Page4 of 6

¶6Contending that the accident had occurred only due to negligence on the part of the deceased as he was riding the motorcycle in a negligent manner, the second respondent Insurance Company/appellant is before this Court with the present appeal.

¶7The learned counsel for the second respondent Insurance Company/appellant submitted the Tribunal has just relied on the salary certificate of the deceased and awarded the compensation. According to the learned counsel, the authenticity of the document has to be proved by examining the author of the document.

¶8We have considered the submissions and perused the entire materials placed before us.

¶9Admittedly, the deceased was a Government servant and he was working as a Village Administrative Officer and his Salary slip has been marked as Ex.P11. If a Government employee dies, the proper document to prove his salary would be Salary Certificate. The second respondent Insurance Company/appellant has not produced any other document to disprove the same. The second respondent Insurance Company/appellant could have very well examined an Official from the Office of the District Collector to establish the same, but no one was examined. That apart, to say that the deceased contributed to the accident, absolutely no evidence was produced on the side of the second respondent Insurance Company/appellant. Hence, we are of the view that the Tribunal had rightly taken into account, salary slip of the deceased and Page5 of 6 added 50% towards future prospects as per the dictum laid down in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in 2017(2) TNMAC 609 (SC) and by making necessary deductions awarded the compensation. Therefore, we are of the view that the award passed by the Tribunal does not require any interference and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. The second respondent Insurance Company/appellant is directed to deposit the compensation amount with accured interest and costs within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Court. No costs. Consequently the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (N.S.K.,J.) (M.J.R.,J.) gpa

07.08.2026 Page6 of 6

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J. AND

M.JOTHIRAMAN, J. gpa To

¶1The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Sub-Court), Tiruvannamalai

¶2The Section Officer VR Section Madras High Court

07.08.2026

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 07.08.2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN & C.M.P.No.19066 of 2026 The Divisional Manager Oriental Insurance Company Limited No.32/13, Vijayalakshmi Complex Phase II, Sathuvacheri, Vellore ..Appellant Vs. 1.Lalitha W/o.(Late) Prabakaran 2.Minor Agilan S/o.(Late) Prabakaran 3. Minor Prathik S/o.(Late) Prabakaran 4.Kumutha W/o.Theerthagiri 5. Theerthagiri S/o.Rajangam 6. Sanjiv Kumar S/o.Ayyanna Chetty ..Respondents Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.130 of 2024 dated 05.06.2025 on the file of Page2 of 6 Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Sub-Court), Tiruvannamalai. For Appellant(s): Mr.J.Chandran For Respondent(s): Mr.A.G.F.Terry Chella Raja for R1 to R5