Madras High Court
The Oriental Insurance Company ... vs Sudha @ Sudha Ramamoorthy on 6 August, 2021
C.M.A.No.2111 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :06.08.2021
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN
and
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
C.M.A.No.2111 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.11613 of 2021
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
Motor third Party Claims,
No.115 & 116, Prakasam Salai,
Broadway, Chennai-600 108. ... Appellant
Vs
1.Sudha @ Sudha Ramamoorthy
2.Minor N.Vijayalakshmi
Rep. by her father and N.F.Naveen.D ..Respondents
PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and Decree dated
19.01.2021 passed in M.C.O.P.No.2362 of 2018 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai. (In the IV Court of Small Causes,
Chennai).
For Appellant : Mr.R.Sivakumar
For Respondents : Mr.F.Terry Chella Raja
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.)
The appellant / Insurance Company has filed this appeal
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2111 of 2021
challenging the award passed in MCOP No.2362 of 2018 by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai,awarding compensation to the
injured/claimant.
2.The fact reveals that on 28.09.2017 at about 12.45 hrs, the
claimant Sudha travelled along with four others in Toyota Etios car from
Hosur to Vellore National Highways and near Iraivankadu flyover, the
driver of the Tata bus had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent
manner and dashed against the car, thereby, she was thrown out of the
car and sustained multiple injuries and she became permanently disabled.
So she prayed compensation from the owner of the bus as well as the
Insurance Company.
3. On hearing both sides, the Tribunal concluded that the
accident happened due to the negligent act of the driver of the bus and
fastened the liability upon the appellant's Insurance Company. Aggrieved
by the said order, the Insurance Company has preferred the appeal.
4.Heard Mr.R.Sivakumar, learned Counsel appearing for the
appellant.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2111 of 2021
5.The question of law that arises for consideration in this
appeal is as to whether the Tribunal failed to consider the fact that the
accident happened only due to the rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the Toyoto Etios car, in which the 1st respondent herein was
travelling as an occupant ?
6.At the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the
appellant / Insurance Company submitted that the accident happened due
to the negligent driving of the car and the same also revealed from the
information which was given at the time of her admission in the hospital.
To support his contention, he relied upon two discharge summaries
issued by the Christian Medical College, which is marked as Ex.P6 and
P7 and in that discharge summary, it is stated that car toppled across the
bifurcator while trying to overtake and the patient was thrown out of the
car, based upon which, the appellant's counsel argued that the owner of
the car as well as its Insurance Company are necessary parties because
the driver of the car negligently had driven the vehicle at the time of the
said accident.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2111 of 2021
7. As rightly pointed out by the claimants' counsel, as per the
averments in the FIR, the driver of the bus, had driven the vehicle in a
rash and negligent manner and proceeded on the back side of the car and
dashed against the car, thereby the 1st respondent and the driver of the car
have sustained grievous injuries. It is clearly proved that the accident had
happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus
who dashed against the car, thereby the claimant was thrown out of the
vehicle. This fact has not been denied by the owner of the bus as well as
the Insurance Company, nor any contrary evidence was adduced to prove
the alleged negligent act of the driver of the car. If really the accident
happened due to the negligent act of the driver of the car, the driver of
the bus ought to have given the complaint but no such steps were taken
on the side of the owner of the bus, nor any sufficient reason was
explained. Therefore, the foremost objection raised by the appellant
about the alleged negligent act of the driver of the car, at the appellate
stage is not acceptable one.
8.As discussed above, negligent act of the driver is to be
properly and sufficiently proved before the Tribunal and therefore,
objection raised by the appellant is unsustainable one. On the other hand,
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2111 of 2021
the claimants' have prima facie proved the neglignet act of the driver of
the bus. The Tribunal rightly awarded compensation in favour of the
claimants, which needs no interference by this Court. Therefore, the
appeal is to be dismissed as devoid of merits.
9.The Tribunal awarded 7.5 % interest from the date of
petition dated 05.04.2018 till the date of deposit and the same is hereby
confirmed. Therefore, the award amount of Rs.78,24,000/- with 7.5%
interest is a very reasonable and just compensation and the same does not
require any interference by this Court. Hence, the appeal fails and the
same is liable to be dismissed.
10.The appellant is directed to deposit the entire award amount
as per the award of the Tribunal, along with interest and costs, after
deducting the amount, if any, already deposited, within a period of four
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such
deposit being made, the Tribunal is directed to transfer the respective
shares of the Respondents through RTGS within a period of one week,
except the share of the 2nd Respondent/minors, which shall be deposited
in any one of the Nationalized Banks in an interest bearing Fixed Deposit
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2111 of 2021
till they attain majority and the interest accrued in the Fixed Deposit
Scheme shall be withdrawn by her father. The proportion of allocation of
shares adopted by the Tribunal, shall stand confirmed.
11. Accordingly the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed
and the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai
in MCOP.No.2362 of 2018 is confirmed. No costs. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
12.Call the matter after four weeks to file an affidavit by the
appellant / Insurance Company for having complied with the order
passed by this Court, failing which Chairman-cum-Managing Director
and Chief Financial Officer-cum-Chief Accounts Officer of the appellant
/ Insurance Company shall appear before this Court.
(N.K.K.,J.) (T.V.T.S.,J.)
06.08.2021
rri
Index: Yes/ No
Speaking order: Yes
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2111 of 2021
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Chennai.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section, High Court of Madras.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2111 of 2021
N.KIRUBAKARAN, J.
and
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
rri
C.M.A.No.2111 of 2021
and
C.M.P.No.11613 of 2021
06.08.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
