Madras High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Kaasi on 20 April, 2021
C.M.A.Nos.627 of 2015 & 1903 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.04.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
C.M.A.Nos.627 of 2015 & 1903 of 2016 &
M.P.No.1 of 2015
In CMA.No.627 of 2015
The Divisional Manager,
M/s.United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
No.46, Katpadi Salai,
Vellore District ... Appellant
..Vs..
1.Kaasi
2.Krishnan ...Respondents
In CMA.No.1903 of 2016
Kasi ... Appellant
vs.
1.Krishnan
(set exparte before the Tribunal)
2.The Divisional Manager,
The United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
No.46, Katpadi Salai,
Vellore. ... Respondents
Common Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree passed in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.627 of 2015 & 1903 of 2016
MCOP.No.160 of 2009 on 31.01.2012 on the file of the learned Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional Subordinate – Judge) at
Tiruvannamalai – District.
For Appellant in CMA.No.627 of 2015 &
R2 in CMA.No.1903 of 2016 : Mr.J.Chandran
For R1 in CMA.No.627 of 2015 &
Appellant in CMA.No.1903 of 2016 : Mr.F.Terry Chella Raja
COMMON JUDGMENT
CMA.No.627 of 2015 has been filed by the Insurance Company and
CMA.No.1903 of 2016 has been filed by the claimant challenging the award
dated 31.01.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Additional Subordinate – Judge), Tiruvannamalai District in
MCOP.No.160 of 2009.
2. Heard Mr.J.Chandran, learned counsel for the Insurance Company
and Mr.F.Terry Chella Raja, learned counsel appearing for the claimant.
Since the owner of the vehicle was set exparte before the Tribunal, notice to
the owner of the vehicle is dispensed with by this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.627 of 2015 & 1903 of 2016
3. The Tribunal under the impugned award has directed the Insurance
Company to pay the claimant a sum of Rs.92,000/- as compensation
together with interest and costs for the injuries sustained by him as a result
of an accident caused by the insured vehicle. The details of the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal are as follows:
Heads Award Amount
(Rs.)
Loss of income for the period of 3,000/-
one month
Extra nutritious 3,000/-
Attender Charges 3,000/-
Transportation Charges 3,000/-
Pain and Suffering 10,000/-
Partial Permanent Disability 70,000/-
Total 92,000/-
4. The Insurance Company has challenged the impugned award
questioning its liability since according to them, the claimant is an
unauthorised passenger who travelled in the goods vehicle and not entitled
for compensation. The case of the claimant as seen from the claim petition
is that he was carrying goods belonging to the owner in the goods vehicle
and entitled for compensation for the injuries sustained by him as a result of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.627 of 2015 & 1903 of 2016
the accident caused by the insured vehicle. However, it is the contention of
the Insurance Company before the Tribunal that the claimant is an
authorised passenger as he along with other persons travelled in the insured
vehicle as gratuitous passenger to attend a political meeting and hence,
according to them, the claimant is not entitled for any compensation from
the Insurance Company.
5. Before the Tribunal, the claimant has filed six documents which
were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 and two witnesses were examined on his
side viz., the claimant himself as PW1 and the Doctor who examined him as
PW2. On the side of the Insurance Company, three documents were filed
which were marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 and one witness was examined
namely their official as RW1.
6. As seen from the evidence available on record, it has been the
consistent stand of the claimant that he was carrying the goods belonging to
the owner, when the accident had happened which resulted in the injuries
sustained by him. Even though the Insurance Company has disputed its
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.627 of 2015 & 1903 of 2016
liability on the ground that the claimant is an unauthorised passenger and
not entitled for any compensation, no evidence has been placed on record
before the Tribunal to establish their case that the claimant is a gratuitous
passenger and an authorised passenger. Even though in their evidence
through RW1, it has been deposed by him that other persons who travelled
along with the claimant in this Appeal in the very same insured vehicle had
also preferred claims against the Insurance Company which were dismissed
for default, the number of the claim petitions have also not been disclosed.
7. The Tribunal has considered all these factors and only thereafter
has come to the right conclusion that the Insurance Company is liable to
compensate the claimant. Further the Tribunal has awarded a just
compensation of Rs.92,000/-. The Insurance Company has also not
challenged the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimant and has
challenged only its liability.
8. The accident happened in the year 1999 and no useful purpose will
be served if fresh enquiry is ordered by this Court relating to the said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.627 of 2015 & 1903 of 2016
accident and based on preponderance of probabilities of the case, the
Tribunal has rightly held the Insurance Company liable. Accordingly, this
court is of the considered view that the appeal filed by the Insurance
Company is liable to be dismissed.
9. Insofar as the appeal filed by the claimant is concerned, this Court
is of the considered view that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal
under the impugned award is a just compensation and therefore there is no
scope for enhancement as prayed for by the claimant in CMA.No.1903 of
2016 which was filed one year after the appeal filed by the Insurance
Company.
10. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in both the appeals
filed by the Insurance Company as well as the claimant. Accordingly, both
the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed. The Appellant in
CMA.No.627 of 2015 / second respondent in CMA.No.1903 of 2016, the
Insurance company is directed to deposit the entire award amount along
with interest and costs as assessed by the Tribunal after deducting the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.627 of 2015 & 1903 of 2016
amount already deposited if any to the credit of MCOP.No.160 of 2009
within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
Judgment. On such deposit being made, the Tribunal shall transfer the
amount lying to the credit of MCOP.No.160 of 2009 to the bank account of
the claimant who is the Appellant in CMA.No.1903 of 2016 / first
respondent in CMA.No.627 of 2015 through RTGS within a period of one
week thereafter. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition
is closed.
11. It is made clear that since according to the Insurance Company,
the claim petitions filed by other persons travelling in the same vehicle in
which the claimant was also travelling have been dismissed for default, they
do not have any right to seek compensation from the Insurance Company.
20.04.2021
nl
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.627 of 2015 & 1903 of 2016
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
nl
To
1. The Additional Subordinate – Judge, Tiruvannamalai – District.
2.The Section Officer
V.R.Section, High Court of Madras.
C.M.A.Nos.627 of 2015 & 1903 of 2016
20.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
