CMA.No.578 of 2023 __________ Page1 of 7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.578 of 2023 & CMP.No.4897 of 2023 The National Insurance Co.Ltd., No.165, Nethaji Road, Manjakuppam, Cuddalore. ...Appellant Vs 1. S.Sathishkumar S/O.Selvam, Vanniyar Street, Kottakkarai, Parvathipuram, Vadalur, Cuddalore Taluk. 2. S.Senthil Kumar S/O.Selvam, Vanniyar Street, Kottakkarai, Parvathipuram, Vadalur, Cuddalore Taluk. ...Respondents APPEAL under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 22.3.2019 made in MCOP No.2430 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Judge) at Cuddalore. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.578 of 2023 __________ Page2 of 7 For Appellant: Ms.R.Sree Vidhya For Respondents: Court notice sent returned with the endorsement ‘left’ JUDGMENT This appeal has been filed by the appellant – Insurance Company against the award dated 22.3.2019 made in MCOP.No. 2430 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Court), Cuddalore (for short, the Tribunal below) questioning their liability to pay compensation. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant – Insurance Company. The first respondent - claimant was served with notice since the intimation has been delivered and he has not chosen to contest the appeal. The second respondent – owner of the vehicle remained ex parte before the Tribunal below. Hence, notice to him is dispensed with. 3. The facts leading to filing of this case are as follows: (i) On 16.8.2012, the first respondent - claimant was riding a two wheeler at Kurinjipadi and all of a sudden, a cyclist crossed the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.578 of 2023 __________ Page3 of 7 road, as a result of which, the two wheeler dashed on the cycle and the claimant as well as the cyclist sustained injuries. The cyclist, who was injured, filed MCOP.No.2425 of 2012 and the injured, who had driven the two wheeler, filed MCOP.No.2430 of 2012. (ii) The Tribunal below, on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the accident had taken place only due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the claimant, who had driven the two wheeler. (iii) Having rendered the above finding, the Tribunal below fixed the total compensation under the following heads: S.No. Head Amount 1 3% permanent disability Rs.21,384/- 2 Pain and suffering Rs. 5,000/- 3 Loss of amenities Rs.10,000/- 4 Loss of income for 3 months Rs. 9,900/- 5 Attendant charges Rs. 5,000/- 6 Transportation charges Rs. 5,000/- 7 Extra nourishment Rs. 5,000/- Total Rs.61,284/- (iv) The above total compensation amount was directed to be paid by both the appellant – Insurance Company as well as the second respondent – owner of the vehicle together with interest at https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.578 of 2023 __________ Page4 of 7 the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit. Aggrieved by that, the appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company. 4. This Court has carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the materials available on record and more particularly the impugned award. 5. The main ground that was urged on the side of the appellant – Insurance Company is that the first respondent – claimant was a tortfeasor in this case, that the first information report was registered against him and that therefore, he would not be entitled for payment of any compensation. 6. The ground that was raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant – Insurance Company is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai Vs. Ravi & another [reported in 2010 (5) MLJ 406]. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.578 of 2023 __________ Page5 of 7 7. The first respondent – claimant was the borrower of the vehicle and he was also a tortfeasor in this case. Therefore, even Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 cannot be invoked and no compensation is payable to the first respondent – claimant. 8. In the light of the above discussions, the finding of the Tribunal below fixing the liability on the appellant – Insurance Company is liable to be set aside. This Court holds that the appellant – Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to the first respondent – claimant, who was the borrower of the vehicle and tortfeasor. 9. Accordingly, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed and the award dated 22.3.2019 made in MCOP.No.2430 of 2012 on the file of the Tribunal below is set aside. It is made clear that the entire amount deposited by the appellant – Insurance Company is permitted to be withdrawn together with accrued interest. Consequently, the connected CMP is closed. 20-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.578 of 2023 __________ Page6 of 7 To The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/ Principal Sub-Court, Cuddalore. RS https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.578 of 2023 __________ Page7 of 7 N.ANAND VENKATESH,J RS CMA.No.578 of 2023 & CMP.No.4897 of 2023 20-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis