Madras High Court Adjudicates Insurance Company's Appeal Against Motor Accident Compensation Award. The Appeal, Filed Under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Questions the Quantum of Compensation for the Death of a Zomato Delivery Rider in a Road Accident.

High Court: Madras High Court Bench: Principal
  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

This is an excerpt from a judgment of the Madras High Court. The appeal was preferred by the insurance company challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The accident involved a Zomato delivery man who died when a lorry hit his motorcycle from behind. The Tribunal, after examining eyewitness testimony, found negligence of the lorry driver and awarded compensation. The insurance company raised defenses including contributory negligence, driving without licence and helmet, and driver under alcohol. The High Court's analysis and decision on these contentions are not contained within the provided text.

Issue of Consideration

Whether the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is excessive and requires reduction.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (MAD) (07) 32

CMA No. 2310 of 2026 and CMP No. 17702 of 2026

2026-07-10

N. Sathish Kumar, M. Jothiraman

P. Suresh Srinivasan (for appellant), M. Malar (for respondents 1 to 3)

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

1. Asma, 2. Najmunnisha, 3. Abdul Khadher, 4. S.Kanniyappan

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal challenging quantum of compensation.

Remedy Sought

The appellant Insurance Company seeks reduction of the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal.

Filing Reason

The Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimants (dependents of the deceased) and the Insurance Company, being the insurer, challenges the quantum as excessive.

Previous Decisions

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, passed an award dated 09.04.2025 in MCOP.No.5614 of 2022, holding the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver and awarding compensation to the claimants. The quantum was challenged in this appeal.

Issues

Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and requires reduction.

Submissions/Arguments

Insurance Company contended that the accident was caused by an unknown vehicle and that the lorry was falsely implicated. It also alleged that the lorry driver was under the influence of alcohol, and that the deceased was negligent by driving without a licence and helmet under time pressure. Claimants alleged that the lorry driver's rash and negligent driving caused the accident.

Judgment Excerpts

According to the claimants, on 12.11.2022 at about 1.30 p.m., while the victim Mr.Mohammed Ali, a Zomato delivery man was driving a Bajaj Pulsar Motorcycle... an Ashok Leyland Trailor lorry ... dashed behind the victim’s motorcycle. Due to the accident, the victim fell onto the road with helmet and the said lorry ran over on his head, causing his instantaneous death. The Tribunal found that PW2 is the eye witness to the accident and he categorically deposed that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing Reg.No.TN 18 E 4001.

Procedural History

The claimants filed MCOP.No.5614 of 2022 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai. The Tribunal passed an award on 09.04.2025. The Insurance Company, being the 2nd respondent in the MCOP, filed the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Madras High Court, which was registered as CMA No. 2310 of 2026.

Acts & Sections

  • Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: 173
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Specific Performance Suit — Upholds Concurrent Findings of Readiness and Willingness. Sale Agreement for Rs.4,75,000 with Rs.75,000 advance; plaintiff always ready and willing; defendant's unilateral res...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Magistrate's Order Allowing Further Witness Examination in PCPNDT Act Case — Order Lacks Reasons and Justification. The court held that an order granting permission to examine further witnesses must record reasons and cons...