Madras High Court
The Manager vs Chinnaponnu on 30 April, 2021
C.M.A.No.1713 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30.04.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
C.M.A.No.1713 of 2016
and
C.M.P.No.12928 of 2016
The Manager,
Bharti AXA General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
1st Floor, Ferns Icon, Survey No.28, Doddanakudi Village,
K.R.Puram, Hobli, Bangalore-37,
Karnataka State. … Appellant
Vs.
1.Chinnaponnu
2.Mrs.V.Radha … Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated 30.06.2015 made in
M.C.O.P.No.1005 of 2013 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Special District Judge, Krishnagiri.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Poomalai
For Respondents : Mr.Mukund R.Pandiyan for R1
Mr.S.Nambirajan for R2.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/6
C.M.A.No.1713 of 2016
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the
award dated 30.06.2015 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Special District Judge, Krishnagiri in MCOP No.1005 of 2013.
2. Heard Mr.K.Poomalai, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance
Company and Mr.Mukund R.Pandiyan, learned counsel for the first respondent
and Mr.S.Nambirajan, learned counsel for the second respondent.
3. The appellant/Insurance Company has challenged the impugned award
on the following grounds :
a) They are questioning their liability on the ground that the driver of the
insured vehicle was not possessing driving licence at the time of
accident.
b) The quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive.
4. This Court has perused and examined the impugned award as well the
materials and evidence available on record before the Tribunal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1713 of 2016
5. With regard to the 1st contention is concerned, admittedly, the driver of
the insured vehicle was not possessing a driving licence at the time of accident.
The driving licence has not been marked as an exhibit before the tribunal. The
Regional Transport Officials (RW1) Hosur, has also been examined and has
also deposed that no driving licence was issued by their office in favour of the
driver of the insured vehicle. The appellant/Insurance Company has also issued
notice to the owner of the vehicle as well as driver which was marked as Ex.R3
and duly acknowledged by the owner of the vehicle which was marked as
Ex.R4 before the Tribunal. Despite the said notice, the owner of the vehicle
failed to produce the driving licence. The owner of the vehicle has also
remained exparte before the Tribunal. Therefore, it is very clear that the owner
of the vehicle was not possessing a driving licence at the time of accident.
Hence, in view of the policy violation, the Tribunal ought to have granted pay
and recovery rights to the appellant but has erroneously failed to do so under
the impugned award. Hence, pay and recovery right is granted by this Court to
the appellant/Insurance Company and the appellant is directed to pay the
compensation amount and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle
namely, the 2nd respondent herein. Therefore, the first contention raised by the
appellant is answered in favour of the appellant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1713 of 2016
6. Insofar as the next contention raised by the appellant, questioning the
quantum of compensation is concerned, this Court is of the considered view
that the over all compensation of Rs.4,90,000/- awarded by the Tribunal to the
1st respondent/claimant cannot be considered to be excessive for the following
reasons:
The 1st respondent/claimant is the mother of the deceased minor Divya,
aged 11 years at the time of accident who was a student. The Tribunal has fixed
her notional annual income at Rs.40,000/- p.a. which cannot be considered to
be excessive as the accident happened on 28.01.2012. The Tribunal has also
rightly deducted 50% towards the personal expenses of the deceased. The
assessment of the compensation by the Tribunal towards loss of future income
at Rs.3,60,000/-, towards loss of love and affection for the 1st
respondent/claimant at Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs.10,000/- towards transportation and
Rs.20,000/- towards funeral expenses cannot be considered to be excessive.
Thus, the total compensation of Rs.4,90,000/- awarded by the Tribunal to the 1 st
respondent/claimant cannot be considered to be excessive and the same is
confirmed by this Court.
7. Except for granting pay and recovery rights to the appellant/Insurance
Company, the other ground raised by the appellant / Insurance Company in this
appeal is rejected by this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1713 of 2016
8. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by granting pay and recovery
rights to the appellant / Insurance Company. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
9. The Appellant / Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire
award amount awarded by the Tribunal together with interest at 7.5% p.a. from
the date of claim petition till the date of realization, less the amount, if any,
already deposited to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.1005 of 2013 on the file of
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Judge, Krishnagiri, within a
period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment and
then recover the same from the owner of the vehicle, namely, the 2nd respondent
herein on the same cause of action. On such deposit being made, the Tribunal is
directed to transfer the award amount directly to the bank account of the first
respondent /claimant, through RTGS, within a period of two weeks thereafter.
30.04.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
ssn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1713 of 2016
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
ssn
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Special District Judge, Krishnagiri.
2.The Section Officer,
Vernacular Records Section,
Madras High Court.
C.M.A.No.1713 of 2016
and
C.M.P.No.12928 of 2016
30.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
