Authority: High Court of Judicature at Madras

Order Date: 05-08-2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellants – Jayanthi, K. Sindhu, K. Maha, K. Meena, A. Chinnammal (family of the deceased A. Kumar) and the late O. Arumugam (deceased father); Respondents – Soundararajan (owner of the offending lorry) and Go Digit General Insurance Company Ltd (insurer).
  • Accident: On 29‑06‑2021, A. Kumar was riding a two‑wheeler on Wallajabad‑Vandalur Road at ~9:30 pm. A lorry driven rashly collided with him near Salamangalam Koot Road, causing fatal injuries; he died on the spot.
  • Legal Proceedings: FIR filed as Crime No. 728 of 2021. Claim petition filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judge, Small Causes Court), Chennai. The insurer filed a counter‑claim asserting that compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act (MV Act) should be reduced by amounts already received under the Employees’ State Insurance (ESI) Scheme.
  • Tribunal Award (24‑10‑2025): Total compensation Rs 29,24,992 rounded to Rs 29,25,000, broken down as:

1. Loss of income/dependency – Rs 26,17,992

2. Loss of estate – Rs 16,500

3. Loss of consortium – Rs 2,64,000

4. Funeral expenses – Rs 16,500

5. Transportation & personal belongings – Rs 10,000

The Tribunal directed the insurer to deposit the amount with interest at 7.5% p.a. and to deduct the sum already received by the claimants under the ESI Scheme.

  • Appeal Grounds: The appellants contested the deduction, arguing that Section 53 of the ESI Act bars deduction only when the claim is made against the employer, not a third‑party tortfeasor, and cited numerous Supreme Court and High Court precedents.
  • Respondent’s Position: The insurer relied on Sections 53 and 61 of the ESI Act, contending that allowing double recovery would constitute a “bonanza” and that claimants must choose one enactment.
  • Judgment Reasoning:
  • The Court examined prior judgments (e.g., C. Alliammal, K. Suguna J in S. Ajantha, Rajkumar Agrawal, etc.) and held that the bar under Section 53 applies only to claims against the employer in the employee’s capacity.
  • Since the present claim is against a third‑party vehicle owner for a tort, the ESI benefits are independent and should not be set‑off.
  • The Court noted that the Apex Court has referred the issue to a larger bench, but an interim “via‑media” arrangement is permissible to avoid hardship to senior‑citizen claimants.
  • The pension received by the first and second claimants from the ESI Corporation up to 31‑07‑2024 will be deducted, but the remaining balance of the Tribunal award will be paid in full.
  • Final Outcome:
  • The civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed.
  • The award of Rs 29,25,000 is confirmed in full; no deduction for ESI benefits except the pension amount already received by the first two claimants.
  • The insurer must deposit the full amount plus interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of the claim petition, less any amount already deposited, within six weeks of receiving the judgment copy.
  • Claimants may withdraw their respective shares as per the Tribunal’s proportionate allocation; the fifth appellant (A. Chinnammal) may also withdraw her husband’s share.
  • The guidelines issued in CMA.No. 2064 of 2026 dated 08‑07‑2026 shall be strictly complied with for disbursement.
  • No costs awarded.

Topics: Compensation Law, ESI Act Interpretation