Madras High Court
The United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Minor Balambigai on 9 August, 2021
CMA No.1231 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.08.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
CMA No.1231 of 2016
CMP.No.9310 of 2016
The United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
No.48, Arcot Road,
Chennai – 93. .. Appellant
versus
1. Minor Balambigai
minor rep by her guardian respondents 2 and 3.
2. R.Natarajan
3. Manvizhi
4. G.Umashankar ...Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act against the judgment and decree dated 11.09.2014 made in
MCOP.No.73 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accident claims Tribunal,
III Additional District Judge, Poonamallee.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Arun Kumar
For Respondents : Mr. Vardha Kamaraj for R2 to R4
R1 – Minor – Represented by R2 and R3.
JUDGMENT
(This case has been heard through Video Conference)
This appeal has been filed by the insurance company challenging
the impugned award dated 11.09.2014 passed by the MACT, III
Additional District Judge, Poonamallee in MCOP.No.73 of 2013.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.1231 of 2016
2. The appellant/insurance company has challenged the impugned
award on the following grounds :-
(i) the deceased was herself a tort-feaser and responsible for the
cause for the accident and therefore they are not liable to pay
compensation to the dependants of the deceased.
(ii) the quantum of compensation fixed by the tribunal under the
impugned award is excessive.
3. The Tribunal under the impugned award had directed the
appellant/insurance company to pay a compensation of Rs.18,02,000/- to
the respondents/claimants as detailed hereunder :-
Heads Amount awarded
by the Tribunal
(Rs.)
Loss of Income 16,32,000/-
(96,000x17)
Mental agony 10,000/-
Funeral expenses 10,000/-
Love and affection 1,50,000/-
respondents 2 and 3 –
25,000/-each
1st respondent – Rs.1,00,000/-
Total 18,02,000/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.1231 of 2016
4. The accident happened on 06.03.2012. The deceased Nirmal
was a pillion rider travelling in the insured motor cycle along with her
husband who was the rider. In the claim petition, the
respondents/claimants who are dependants of the deceased had
themselves admitted that the tyre of the motorcycle got punctured and as
a result of the same, the deceased fell down and sustained severe head
injuries. The rider of the motor cycle is non-else than the husband of the
deceased. This being the case, this Court is of the considered view that
when the accident had happened only due to the puncture of the tyre in
the insured motorcycle, some amount of the contributory negligence
ought to have been fixed by the tribunal on the part of the deceased.
However, in the impugned award, despite the admission of the claimants
that the accident had happened only due to the puncture of the tyre in the
insured motorcycle and the FIR (Ex.A1) has also been closed due to
mistake of fact, the Tribunal has failed to fix any contributory negligence
on the part of the deceased. Therefore, this Court fixes contributory
negligence of the deceased at 15%.
5. With regard to the quantum of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is concerned which the appellant/insurance company has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.1231 of 2016
questioned, even though under certain heads, the compensation awarded
is on the higher side, but in view of the fact that the tribunal has not
awarded any compensation towards loss and future prospects which the
respondents/claimants are legally entitled to, the overall compensation
awarded by the Tribunal cannot be considered to be excessive and
therefore there is no scope of interference by this Court with regard to the
quantum. Hence, the second contention of the appellant/insurance
company that the quantum of compensation awarded is excessive is
rejected by this Court.
6. Hence, after deducting 15% of the compensation towards
contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is reassesed by this Court.
7. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is partly allowed by fixing
15% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and the
appellant/insurance company is directed to deposit the reassessed
compensation of Rs.15,31,700/- before the Tribunal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.1231 of 2016
8. The appellant / Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
entire award amount of Rs.15,31,700/- (reduced amount) as assessed by
this Court 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 MCOP No.73 of 2013 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (III Additional District Judge) Poonamallee,
within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
Judgment. On such deposit being made, the Tribunal is directed to
transfer the award amount directly to the bank account of the respondents
/claimants, through RTGS, within a period of two weeks thereafter as
per the ratio of apportionment fixed by the Tribunal. Necessary Court
fee, if any has to be paid by the respondents/claimants before receiving
the copy of this Judgment. In case the appellant/insurance company has
deposited any excess amount, they are permitted to withdraw the same by
filing an appropriate application before the Tribunal. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
09.08.2021.
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
tsh
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.1231 of 2016
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
tsh
To
1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
III Additional District Judge, Poonamallee.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R. Section
High Court of Madras, Chennai - 104.
CMA No.1231 of 2016
09.08.2021.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
