Madras High Court
The United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Roghul Manokar on 15 April, 2021
C.M.A.No.1847 of 2016 and
C.M.P.No.11808 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15.04.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
C.M.A.No.1847 of 2016
and
C.M.P.No.11808 of 2016
The United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Railway Feeder Road,
Near LIC, Sulur,
Coimbatore ... Appellant
..Vs..
1.Roghul Manokar
2.R.Ganesh
3.A.Subramani ...Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Order and decree dated 08.01.2015 made in
MCOP.No.1686 of 2013 on the file of the MACT (Spl. Sub-Judge) at
Coimbatore.
For Appellant : Ms.I.Malar
For Respondent 1 : Mr.M.Lokesh,
for Mr.Ma.P.Thangavel
1/8
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.1847 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 08.01.2015 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Spl. Sub-Judge), Coimbatore in MCOP.No.1686
of 2013.
2. The Appellant Insurance Company has challenged the impugned
award on the following grounds that (a) the quantum of compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is excessive (b) the claims Tribunal ought to have
considered the contributory negligence on the part of the claimant who was
the rider of two wheeler bearing registration no.TN38 AM 5429 and (c) the
rider of the two wheeler (insured vehicle) was not possessing a valid driving
license at the time of the accident.
3. Heard Mr.Ms.I.Malar, learned counsel for the Appellant and
Mr.M.Lokesh representing Mr.Ma.P.Thangavel, learned counsel for the first
respondent. Notice sent to the second and third respondents were returned
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.1847 of 2016 and
C.M.P.No.11808 of 2016
with endorsement “no such address”. Since this court is going to confirm the
award, notice to the second and third respondents is dispensed with by this
court.
4. Before the Tribunal, the first respondent/claimant has filed 11
documents which were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P11 and two witnesses were
examined on his side namely the first respondent/claimant himself as PW1
and the Doctor who examined him as PW2. Apart from Ex.P1 to Ex.P11,
material objects were also marked on the side of the first
respondent/claimant which were marked as M.O.1-series of X-ray (four
numbers) and M.O.2-X-ray. On the side of the Appellant Insurance
company, four documents were filed which were marked as Ex.R1 to Ex.R4
but no witness was examined on their side.
5. The Tribunal under the impugned award has directed the Appellant
insurance company to pay the first respondent/claimant a sum of
Rs.1,82,000/- as compensation as detailed hereunder:
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.1847 of 2016 and
C.M.P.No.11808 of 2016
Heads Amount
Compensation for partial 75,000/-
permanent disability (25 x 3,000)
Medical expenses 77,000/-
Pain and sufferings 20,000/-
Extra nourishment 5,000/-
Transport 5,000/-
Total 1,82,000/-
6. The first respondent/claimant was a B.E.Engineering student
studying at Park Engineering College at Coimbatore and aged 21 years at
the time of the accident. He has sustained fracture of right hand and fracture
of neck of right finger and was hospitalised for almost 12 days i.e., between
27.10.2007 and 07.11.2007. The Doctor PW2 has assessed the disability of
the first respondent/claimant at 25%. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of
Rs.75,000/- towards disability compensation calculated at Rs.3,000/- per
percentage of disability. No contra evidence has also been produced by the
Appellant Insurance Company before the Tribunal to disprove the
percentage of disability suffered by the first respondent/claimant.
Considering the year of the accident, the disability compensation awarded
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.1847 of 2016 and
C.M.P.No.11808 of 2016
by the Tribunal at Rs.75,000/- cannot be considered to be excessive and
hence the same is confirmed by this Court. The Tribunal has also awarded a
compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.5,000/- towards
nutrition, Rs.5,000/- towards transportation and Rs.77,000/- towards
medical expenses which cannot be considered to be excessive by this court,
considering the nature of injuries sustained by the first respondent/claimant.
After giving due consideration to the fact that the Tribunal has not awarded
any compensation towards loss of amenities and attender charges, the
overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the first
respondent/claimant cannot be considered to be excessive. Therefore, the
contention of the Appellant insurance company that the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the first respondent/claimant is
excessive is unsustainable.
7. Insofar as the second contention raised by the Appellant that the
claimant is also at fault who was the rider of the two wheeler bearing
registration No.TN38-AM-5429, due to the head on collision is concerned,
the same cannot be accepted by this court, since no evidence has been
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.1847 of 2016 and
C.M.P.No.11808 of 2016
produced by the Appellant insurance company before the Tribunal to
support the said statement. Hence the said contention is also rejected by this
Court.
8. Insofar as the contention of the Appellant Insurance Company that
the rider of the two wheeler (insured vehicle) was not possessing a valid
driving license is concerned, the same is also rejected by this Court for the
following reasons: (a) they have not examined the RTO official to prove that
the rider of the Motor cycle (insured vehicle) was not possessing a driving
license at the time of the accident and (b) notice sent by the Appellant
insurance company dated 21.12.2010 to the owner of the vehicle (insured)
has also been returned unserved as seen from Ex.R2. Therefore the
Appellant insurance company has not established that the rider of the
motorcycle (insured vehicle) did not possess a valid driving license at the
time of the accident.
9. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this appeal.
Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.1847 of 2016 and
C.M.P.No.11808 of 2016
miscellaneous petition is closed.
10. It is represented by the learned counsel for the Appellant
Insurance company that the entire award amount has already been deposited
to the credit of MCOP.No1686 of 2013. This Court directs the Tribunal to
transfer the amount lying to the credit of MCOP.No.1686 of 2013 to the
bank account of the first respondent/claimant through RTGS within a period
of one week thereafter.
15.04.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
nl
To
1. The (Spl. Sub-Judge) at Coimbatore.
2.The Section Officer
V.R.Section, High Court of Madras.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.1847 of 2016 and
C.M.P.No.11808 of 2016
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
nl
C.M.A.No.1847 of
15.04.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
