Madras High Court
New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Saroja Sahadevan on 1 April, 2021
CMA No.3100 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated 01.04.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
CMA.No.3100 of 2011
and
M.P No.1 of 2011
New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
No.45, Moore Street
Chennai.-01. ...Appellant
Vs.
1.Saroja Sahadevan
2.Girija Rukmani
3.P.S.Surendran
4.P.S.Kumarasamy
5.V.C.Adinarayanan ... Respondents
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section
173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the decree and judgment
dated 30.09.2010 passed in M.C.O.P.No.2855 of 2004 by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, (Chief Judge, Small Causes Court), Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Vinod
For Respondents : Mr.S.Natarajan for R1 to R4
Notice unserved to R5
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.3100 of 2011
JUDGMENT
Dissatisfied with the judgment and decree, dated
30.09.2010, passed by the tribunal awarding compensation of
Rs.2,15,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, the
Appellant/ Insurance Company is before this Court to set aside the
judgment and decree by the tribunal.
2. It is the case of the claimants/respondents herein that on
29.10.2003 at 5.45 a.m, the deceased Sahadevan was crossing Gandhi
Mandapam Salai in East to West direction and has almost gone to the
other end of the road. At that time, the first respondent's driver, drove
the vehicle viz., Maruthi Omni Vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-02-
L-9676 in a rash and negligent manner along Gandhi Mandapam Salai
in north to south direction, crossed the yellow line, came to the extreme
right side of the road and hit against the deceased and thereby he
sustained fatal injuries and died on the same day. Hence, a claim
petition has been filed against the respondents seeking a sum of
Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.3100 of 2011
3. The tribunal after analyzing both oral and documentary
evidences, has fixed the negligence on the driver of the 1st respondent
insured with the 2nd respondent/insurance company and directed them
to pay a sum of Rs.2,15,000/- as compensation along with interest at the
rate of 7.5% p.a from the date of petition till realization. The
compensation awarded by the tribunal under various heads are as
follows;
Heads Amount in Rs.
Loss of Income 1,89,000
(27,000 x 7)
Loss of consortium 10,000
Loss of Love and Affection 10,000
Funeral Expenses 6,000
Total 2,15,000/-
4. Before the Tribunal, two witnesses were examined as
P.W.1 & P.W.2 and Exhibits P1 to P4 were marked on the side of the
claimants/respondents 1 to 4 herein. No oral or documentary evidence
was adduced on the side of the 2nd respondent/appellant herein.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.3100 of 2011
5. It is contended by the appellant/ insurance company that
they have filed a counter affidavit before the Tribunal resisting the
claim petition and denied the said accident and the involvement of the
vehicle in the said accident. The Tribunal has considered the defence
taken by the second respondent and observed that the
appellant/insurance company has not examined any witness nor marked
any document to prove that the offending vehicle was not involved in
the said accident and affirming that the said accident was occurred due
to the negligence on the part of the driver of the first respondent
vehicle. The main ground raised by the appellant/insurance company is
that in the FIR which was marked as Ex.P1, it was mentioned as
unknown vehicle and subsequently, there is no evidence placed by the
respondents 1 to 4/claimants to prove that the offending/insured vehicle
was involved in the said accident. Therefore, according to the learned
counsel for the appellant/insurance company, the said claim made by
the respondents 1 to 4/claimants is not genuine and seeks to set aside
the award passed by the Tribunal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.3100 of 2011
6. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 would
submit that the claimants have satisfied the Tribunal by marking the
document Ex.P2 which itself speaks about the investigation on the
complaint and the involvement of the insured vehicle in the said
accident and no material has been placed by the appellant to disprove
the claim of involvement of the insured vehicle in the accident.
Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly came to a conclusion that the
accident was happened due to the negligence on the part of the driver of
the first respondent vehicle.
7. On considering the aforesaid issues, the point involved
in the present appeal is that whether the offending/insured vehicle is not
involved in the accident.
8. A perusal of Ex.P1, viz., copy of FIR and the
observation made by the Tribunal, it reveals that the 1st claimant, who
is the wife of the deceased had lodged a complaint and in the complaint,
she stated that an unknown vehicle was involved in the said accident.
Based on the complaint, the police has investigated the case and filed a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.3100 of 2011
charge sheet and the same was marked as Ex.P2 before the Tribunal.
In the said charge sheet, the vehicle number was specifically mentioned
by the Inspector of Police. There is no other contra evidence or
materials on the side of the appellant/insurance company to disprove
the claim of involvement of the offending/insured vehicle in the said
accident. If the said claim made by the respondents 1 to 4/claimants is
not genuine, the insurance company ought to have taken all efforts to
approach the authority concerned to disprove the claim made by the
claimants. As seen from the records, no such effort was taken by the
appellant/insurance company to disprove the claim of the involvement
of the vehicle in the said accident as alleged by the claimants.
Therefore, the contention of the appellant cannot be accepted and this
Court affirms the findings given by the Tribunal. It is not disputed by
the appellant insurance company against the quantum awarded by the
Tribunal. In view of the aforesaid discussions, there is no merits in the
instant appeal and consequently, this appeal is liable to be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.3100 of 2011
9. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal preferred
by the appellant/insurance company is dismissed and the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.2,15,000/- together with interest at the
rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit
is confirmed. The appellant/insurance company is directed to deposit
the entire award amount along with interest and costs, less the amount
already deposited, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt
of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the respondents 1 to
4/claimants are permitted to withdraw the award amount along with
interest fixed by the Tribunal, after adjusting the amount, if any, already
withdrawn, by filing necessary applications before the Tribunal. No
costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
01.04.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking/non Speaking order
uma
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.3100 of 2011
To
1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Chief Court. Small Causes
Court), Chennai.
2. Section Officer, V.R.Section, Madras High Court, Chennai-104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.3100 of 2011
D. KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
uma
CMA. No.3100 of 2011
and M.P No.1 of 2011
01.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
