Madras High Court
M/S.New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs R.Chandra Mohan on 21 April, 2021
C.M.A.No.347 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.04.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
C.M.A.No.347 of 2014
and M.P.No.1 of 2014
M/s.New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
No.21, Pattullas Road,
Chennai - 2. ... Appellant
-vs-
1.R.Chandra Mohan
2.Danish College of Engineering,
No.17, Officers Colony,
Ayanavaram, Chennai 600 023. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, against the Judgment and Decree passed in
M.C.O.P.No.4734 of 2007 on 08.03.2011 on the file of the Learned Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Small Causes Court V Judge) at Chennai.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.347 of 2014
For Appellant : Mr.J.Chandran
For Respondents : Mr.M.I.Mohammed Abusuguawa
for R1
R2 Not Ready in Notice
*********
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the Judgment
and Decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.4734 of 2007 on 08.03.2011 on the file
of the Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Small Causes Court V
Judge) at Chennai.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to hereunder
according to their litigative status before the Tribunal.
3. The case of the claimant is that on 20.09.2007 when the claimant
was riding his motor cycle near Trident Hotel, GST Road, Chennai, the
vehicle owned by the first respondent insured with the second respondent
was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came behind and
dashed against the claimant. Due to which the claimant sustained injuries
with fracture on his left hand, external fix and multiple abrasions all over
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.347 of 2014
the body. Hence the claim petition.
4. Resisting the same, the second respondent filed the counter stating
that only due to rash and negligent driving of the claimant, the accident was
took place and as such, the second respondent is not liable to pay any
compensation.
5. On the side of the claimants, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and
Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 were marked. On the side of the respondent, no one was
examined and no exhibits were marked. On perusal of the evidence
available on records and also considering the submission made by the
learned counsel appearing on either side, the Tribunal found that a sum of
Rs.1,67,700/- (Rupees One Lakh Sixty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred
only) as compensation payable by the respondents jointly and severally.
Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed the present Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal questioning the liability and also the quantum.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that
the accident was took place only due reckless driving of the offending
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.347 of 2014
vehicle and as such, the Tribunal ought not to have fixed the entire liability
on the first respondent's vehicle. In respect of quantum is concerned, the
claimant sustained fracture on his left hand and it is only a partial disability,
the Tribunal assessed partial disability at 35%. The Tribunal ought not to
have apply the multiplier method.
7. Heard Mr.J.Chandran, learned counsel appearing for the appellant
and Mr.M.I.Mohammed Abusuguawa , learned counsel appearing for the
first respondent.
8. The claimant when he was riding his Motor Cycle on 20.09.2007,
the first respondent's vehicle was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent
manner from behind the vehicle and dashed against the claimant. Due to
which, he sustained fracture in his left hand. Immediately he had undergone
surgery. P.W.2 was examined who assessed the disability of the claimant at
35% and opined the Grade I Compound Communicated fracture of distal
3rd radius left which makes it manifest that the disability is in respect of
particular limb. Therefore, the Tribunal had taken into consideration the
disability at 35% and rightly applied multiplier method and awarded
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.347 of 2014
compensation.
9. Though no FIR was registered as against the offending vehicle, the
second respondent failed to rebut the same. Therefore, this Court finds no
infirmity or irregularity in the order passed by the Court below.
10. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There
shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
21.04.2021
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
rna
To
1.The Small Causes Court V Judge,
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Chennai.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.347 of 2014
rna
C.M.A.No.347 of 2014
and M.P.No.1 of 2014
21.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
