-
by Admin
07 January 2026 4:15 PM
“Compensation Must Reflect Real Loss …..Though contributory factors existed, the accident remained the proximate cause of death” – with this decisive observation, the Madras High Court on October 28, 2025, reaffirming the principles governing insurer liability and computation of compensation in motor accident claims. The Court dismissed the insurer's challenge and partly allowed the claimants’ appeal, enhancing the compensation from ₹2.99 crores to ₹3.26 crores, with interest at 7.5% p.a.
The judgment clarifies crucial points on FIR delay, inclusion of salary components and future prospects, and contributory medical conditions, setting a benchmark for future motor accident compensation adjudications.
“Delay in FIR, If Plausibly Explained, Cannot Vitiate Claim”: Hospital Memo and Eyewitness Testimony Held Sufficient
On 11 August 2010, Sabu James, a 37-year-old Senior Manager at Motorola, met with a tragic accident while travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle. He was hit by an auto-rickshaw (Reg. No. TN-23-AB-7585) near Vishnu Theatre, Vellore. Though admitted to CMC Hospital immediately and treated for serious head injuries, he succumbed after 28 days on 4 September 2010.
The FIR was registered belatedly on 18 August 2010. The insurer argued the delay indicated fabrication. However, the High Court upheld the Tribunal’s acceptance of the explanation. The delay was due to a communication lapse: the medico-legal memo sent by the hospital failed to reach the jurisdictional police station, prompting the informant to pursue the complaint manually.
The Court observed:
“The summary extracted above proves the fact that Sabu James met with an accident on 11.08.2010 and sustained injury... Thus, undoubtedly, the time, place and the manner in which the accident occurred is well spelt out in the earliest document recorded by the hospital authority.”
It held that the medical records, eyewitness testimony (PW-2), and admission by the auto driver during cross-examination sufficiently proved the occurrence and involvement of the vehicle.
“Accident Was Proximate Cause Despite Chronic Illness”: Medical Complications Not a Bar to Compensation
The insurer attempted to escape liability by citing contributory medical conditions – obesity, chronic smoking, and alcohol-related liver disease – arguing these factors contributed significantly to Sabu James’s death.
Rejecting this contention, the Court held:
“Though the contributory factors existed, the accident remained the proximate cause of death – No deduction warranted solely on that basis.”
Relying on both the discharge summary and autopsy report which cited “complications of head injury” as the cause of death, the Court maintained that despite the comorbidities, the accident was the triggering and proximate cause of death. Hence, the insurer's liability remained intact.
“Inclusion of Allowances in Salary Essential to Reflect Real Loss”: HRA, LTA, Medical, and Car Lease Allowances Included
The crux of the dispute lay in the computation of compensation. While the Tribunal had initially fixed annual income at ₹18.77 lakhs excluding certain allowances, the High Court revised this approach.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Indira Srivastava [(2008) AIR SC 845] and Meenakshi v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. [2024 SCC OnLine SC 1872], the Court held that all income components which reflect a real monetary benefit, including House Rent Allowance, Leave Travel Allowance, Medical Allowance, and Car Lease Allowance, must be considered.
“The other allowances... have to be included in the salary component. Whereas the Special/Conveyance allowance being totally related to the individual, depending on his travel, is not income, but a reimbursement of expenditure.”
Accordingly, the Court fixed the net monthly income at ₹1,60,000 after excluding income tax, professional tax, and the Special/Conveyance Allowance. With 50% added for future prospects and a 25% deduction for personal expenses, the monthly loss of dependency was determined at ₹1,80,000. Applying a multiplier of 15 (age 37), the total loss of income was ₹3.24 crores.
“Medi-claim Reimbursements Can’t Be Double-Claimed”: Reimbursement Deducted, But Premium Cost Allowed
Addressing the issue of medical expenses, the Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision to deny a separate award since hospital expenses had been reimbursed under a corporate Medi-claim policy.
“Though the policy is a premium paid policy, from the salary bills... it is an admitted fact that the premium is paid by the employer deducting Rs.200/- p.m. from the salary... Hence, the said deduction of Rs.200/- p.m. alone has to be taken into consideration for commutation of loss of income.”
Thus, while the reimbursement nullified a separate medical compensation claim, the premium amount was factored in while calculating income loss.
“Non-Impleading of Motorcycle Owner Not Fatal to Claim”: Liability of Insurer Upheld
The insurer also argued that since the motorcycle (on which the deceased was pillion rider) was uninsured and its owner was not impleaded, the claim was defective.
The Court clarified:
“Since offending auto caused the accident, insurer’s liability is unaffected” – the vehicle responsible for the accident was the auto, and its owner and insurer bore the liability regardless of the motorcycle’s status.
The final modified compensation of ₹3,26,37,000 was apportioned as follows:
The insurer was directed to deposit the full amount with 7.5% interest per annum within 8 weeks. The minors' share was ordered to be fixed-deposited till majority, with quarterly interest available for maintenance.
The Madras High Court, in this carefully reasoned judgment, reiterated foundational principles of motor accident compensation law – proximate cause in fatal injuries, fair inclusion of income components, limits of insurer objections on procedural grounds, and the importance of just, practical computation.
By holding:
“For proper computation of loss of income, it must be based on the last's month salary slip of the deceased,”
the Court emphasised that compensation must reflect real financial loss, not arbitrary deductions.
This ruling strengthens claimant rights and curtails frivolous insurer defences based on technicalities like FIR delay or exclusion of allowances. It affirms that justice in motor accident claims must focus on substantive realities over procedural imperfections.
Date of Decision: 28 October 2025
