The United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs S.Syed Vasinmuddin (Minor)
2021 Latest Caselaw 9326 Mad

                                                       C.M.A.No.1566 of 2016 and
                                                         C.M.P.No.11808 of 2016

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                            DATED: 08.04.2021
                                CORAM
      THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
                        C.M.A.No.1566 of 2016
                                 and
                        C.M.P.No.11808 of 2016

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Legal Departments, Silingi Buildings,
No.134, Greams Road, Chennai – 600 002.                        ... Appellant

                                    ..Vs..

1.S.Syed Vasinmuddin (minor)
  Rep. by father & n.f. Syed Mohiuddin
2.R.Karunanithi                                           ...Respondents

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Decree and the Judgment dated 20th June,
2014, passed in M.C.O.P.No.4350 of 2011 on the file of the Motor
Accidents Tribunal (VI-Court of Small Causes), Chennai.




            For Appellant                    : Mr.G.Udaya Sankar
            For Respondents 1 & 2            : No appearance




1/6
                                                       C.M.A.No.1566 of 2016 and
                                                         C.M.P.No.11808 of 2016




                              JUDGMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the Insurance

Company challenging the Award dated 20.06.2014 passed by the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal (VI-Court of Small Causes), Chennai in

MCOP.No.4350 of 2011.

2. The Appellant Insurance Company has challenged the impugned

award on the ground that (a) they are not liable to compensate the claimant

in view of the policy violation committed by the insured and (b) the

quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive.

3. Heard Mr.S.Udaya Sankar, learned counsel for the Appellant.

There is no representation on the side of the respondents. Since no adverse

orders are going to be passed against the respondents, the appearance of the

respondents is unnecessary.

C.M.A.No.1566 of 2016 and C.M.P.No.11808 of 2016

4. The first respondent is the claimant and the second respondent is

the insured (owner of the vehicle). The Tribunal has correctly taken into

consideration the policy violation committed by the second respondent and

has granted pay and recovery rights to the Appellant Insurance Company

under the impugned award. Therefore, the first contention of the Appellant

insurance company is unsustainable.

5. Insofar as the quantum of compensation awarded to the first

respondent/claimant is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation

of Rs.3,00,000/- on lump sum basis to the first respondent/claimant. The

first respondent/claimant at the time of the accident was a student aged 8

years and he sustained injuries in head and right leg. He has also sustained

fracture in tibial shaft. Two Doctors were examined as witnesses, namely

Dr.JRR.Thiagarajan, on the side of the claimant and Dr.A.Elango, a

registered medical practitioner at Royapettah Government Hospital, on the

side of the Appellant Insurance Company. There is no contradiction

between the deposition made by Dr.A.Elango as well as

Dr.JRR,Thiagarajan.

C.M.A.No.1566 of 2016 and C.M.P.No.11808 of 2016

6. Dr.JRR.Thiagarajan has deposed that the first respondent/claimant

has suffered 45% disability and to that effect, a disability certificate was

also marked as Ex.P4. However, the Tribunal has fixed the disability only at

20% and by applying just compensation doctrine, the Tribunal has fixed the

compensation payable to the first respondent at Rs.3,00,000/-.

7. Before the Tribunal, the first respondent/claimant has filed four

documents which were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 which included O.P.Slips

issued by the Government Hospital, Royapettah, Chennai, medical

prescriptions and the disability certificate. The case of the first

respondent/claimant was also supported by the deposition of the Doctors

namely Dr.JRR.Thiagarajan and Dr.A.Elango. Since the Tribunal has

reduced the disability on its own from 45% to 20%, this Court is of the

considered view that the quantum of compensation payable by the Tribunal

to the first respondent/claimant at Rs.3,00,000/- cannot be considered to be

excessive as alleged by the Appellant. For the foregoing reasons, the second

contention raised by the Appellant is also unsustainable.

C.M.A.No.1566 of 2016 and C.M.P.No.11808 of 2016

8. In the result, there is no merit in this Appeal. Accordingly, this

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal shall stand dismissed. No costs.

9. It is represented by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the

entire award amount has already been deposited to the credit of

MCOP.No.4350 of 2011. This Court directs the Tribunal to deposit the

amount lying to the credit of MCOP.No.4350 of 2011 in fixed deposit in

any one of the Nationalised Banks, till he attains majority, since the

claimant/first respondent is a minor and the father of the minor claimant is

permitted to withdraw the interest once in six months for the welfare of the

minor. If the minor has attained the age of majority, it is open for him to file

a formal petition to declare him as major. Consequently, connected

miscellaneous petition is closed.

08.04.2021

Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order

nl

C.M.A.No.1566 of 2016 and C.M.P.No.11808 of 2016

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

nl To

1. The VI-Court of Small Causes, Chennai

2.The Section Officer V.R.Section, High Court of Madras.

C.M.A.No.1566 of 2016

08.04.2021