Madras High Court
United India Insurance vs Velu on 11 December, 2025
C.M.A.No.1674 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11.12.2025
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI
C.M.A.No.1674 of 2022
and C.M.P.No.12380 of 2022
United India Insurance
Company Ltd.,
P.R.Sundaram Street,
Dharmapuri Town,
Dharmapuri Taluka and
District.
... Appellants
Versus
1.Velu
2.Murugesan
... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, against the order made in M.C.O.P.No.1807 of
2014, dated 07.01.2021, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Special District Judge) at Dharmapuri.
For Appellants : Mr.R.Sree Vidhya
For Respondents : Mr.M.Sivakaumar
for R1
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/12/2025 05:44:36 pm )
C.M.A.No.1674 of 2022
JUDGMENT
This appeal is directed as against the award of the M.C.O.P.No.1807 of 2014, dated 07.01.2021, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special District Judge) at Dharmapuri.
2.Briefly stated, on 07.03.2011 when the 1st respondent was proceeding in the TVS Star City Motor cycle bearing Reg. No. 29 AH 4722 the auto rickshaw bearing Reg. No.TN 29 AA 5564 belonging to the 2nd respondent, insured with the appellant/Insurance Company which came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the petitioner. Due to which, the 1 st respondent sustained grievous injuries on both knees, right foot and left hand fingers and he was admitted in the Government Dharmapuri Medical College Hospital. He could not walk normally. The 1 st respondent was aged about 42 and was earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month by selling fish.
3.On the aforesaid grounds, the 1st respondent filed a claim petition before the Claims Tribunal claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him. He claimed various amounts under different heads and in all, claimed a total sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation. His claim 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/12/2025 05:44:36 pm ) C.M.A.No.1674 of 2022 was opposed by the appellant/Insurance Company. The learned Tribunal, after trying the issues partly allowed the claim of the 1 st respondent and awarded a sum of Rs.4,98,000/- as compensation.
4.The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submitted that at the time of the accident, the 1st respondent was in a drunken state and had no control over his Two Wheeler, which resulted in dashing of the vehicles. Therefore, the 1 st respondent is solely responsible for the alleged accident. Such being the case, the Tribunal had erred in fixing the negligence on the part of the 1 st respondent only to an extent of 25% and 75% on the part of the second respondent. When the duty Doctor who was examined as (R.W.1) clearly deposed that the 1st respondent was in an intoxicated state at the time of accident, which the Tribunal has failed to appreciate. He further submitted that the Tribunal failed to consider that the findings of the Criminal Court is not binding on the Civil Proceedings. Therefore, the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the fact that the acquittal of the 1 st respondent is insufficient for fixing the negligence on the part of the 1 st Respondent to a lesser extent, when the evidence on record clearly establishes that the 1 st respondent was primarily responsible for the accident. Therefore, the findings rendered by the Tribunal while passing the award is liable to be 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/12/2025 05:44:36 pm ) C.M.A.No.1674 of 2022 interfered with. Hence, he prayed for setting aside the award of the Tribunal.
5.On perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that the Tribunal placing reliance on the proposition laid down in the judgment reported in 2014(1) TNMAC 295 has held that in each case evidence must be assessed applying basic standard proof, and that the respondent failed to prove that the claimant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of accident. The said findings of the Tribunal found to be correct.
6. Now, the question arises as to whether the award passed by the Tribunal requires any interference by this Court. The compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal under various heads are extracted hereunder:
S.No Description Amount
awarded by
Tribunal
(Rs.)
1. Disability 4,53,600
2. Pain and Suffering 30,000
3. Extra Nourishment Expenses 25,000
4. Attender Charges 15,000
5 Loss of amenities 50,000
4/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/12/2025 05:44:36 pm )
C.M.A.No.1674 of 2022
6 Medical Expenses 10,200
7. Transport Expenses 15,000
Total Rs.5,98,800/-
The compensation is arrived as Rs.5,98,800/- and after deducting 25% towards contributory negligence on the 1 st respondent, the 1st respondent is entitled to get only Rs.4,49,100/- being 75% of the total award.
7.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal found to be excessive. Hence, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, under various heads, is modified by this Court as follows:
S.No Description Amount Amount awarded by awarded by this Court (Rs.) Tribunal (Rs.)
1. Disability 4,53,600 3,52,800
2. Pain and Suffering 30,000 30,000
3. Extra Nourishment 25,000 10,000 Expenses
4. Attender Charges 15,000 10,000
5. Loss of amenities 50,000 25,000 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/12/2025 05:44:36 pm ) C.M.A.No.1674 of 2022
6. Medical Expenses 10,200 10,200
7. Transport 15,000 10,000 Expenses Total 5,98,800 4,48,000 After 25% 4,49,100 3,36,000 deduction of Contributory Negligence
8. In the result, the present appeal is partly allowed. No Cost.
(i)The Appellant/Insurance is directed to pay the above said compensation amount now determined by this Court to the 1 st respondent along with interest and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
(ii)The appellant/Insurance Company is at liberty to withdraw the excess amount, if deposited by them, over and above the compensation awarded by this Court.
(iii)On such deposit, the 1st respondent/Claimant is permitted to withdraw the award amount after filling a proper petition for withdraw.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
11.12.2025 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/12/2025 05:44:36 pm ) C.M.A.No.1674 of 2022 vsn To:
1.The Special District Judge, Motor Vehicle Accident Tribunal, Dharmapuri.
2.The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.
K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI,J.
vsn 7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/12/2025 05:44:36 pm ) C.M.A.No.1674 of 2022 C.M.A.No.1674 of 2022 and C.M.P.No.12380 of 2022 11.12.2025 8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/12/2025 05:44:36 pm )