Madras High Court
National Insurance Company Ltd vs Selvambal on 31 August, 2021
C.M.A.No.435 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 31.08.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN
C.M.A.No.435 of 2019
and CMP.No.1544 of 2019
National Insurance Company Ltd.,
Mahalakshmi Nivasam,
Opposite to Kiruba Hospital
Rajaji Road, Salem- 7 ... Appellant
3rd respondent / Appellant was
added as 3rd respondent in OP
by order dated 05.02.2015 and made
in I.A.No.1789 of 2014
amended as per order dated
24.04.2015 and made in
I.A.No.471 of 2015
Vs.
1. Selvambal,
2. Raja,
3. Sekar, ... Respondents
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, pleased to set aside the Decree and Judgment
dated 05.03.2018 made in M.C.O.P.No.1185 of 2014 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Subordinate Court No.1, Salem.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.435 of 2019
For Appellant : Mr.S.Vadivel
For Respondents : Mr.V.Karunakaran for R1
Mr.P.Mathivanan (R2 & R3)
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the award dated
05.03.2018 made in M.C.O.P.No.1185 of 2014 on the file of Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Special Sub-ordinate Court No.1, Salem.
2. The appellant is the third respondent in M.C.O.P.No.1185 of 2014
on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special Subordinate Court
No.1, Salem. The first respondent filed the above said claim petition claiming
a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries suffered by her in
the accident that took place on 11.09.2012.
3. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary
evidence held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent
driving by the driver/3rd respondent of the Tipper lorry belonging to 2nd
respondent and directed the 2nd respondent and the appellant to jointly or
severally pay a sum of Rs.2,86,560/- as compensation to the 1st respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.435 of 2019
4. According to the first respondent/claimant, on 11.09.2012 at
about 4:30 hours the petitioner was loading the bricks in the 1 st respondent's
Tipper Lorry bearing Reg.No.TN 54 B 6189 at Mannarpalayam in Settu's
land. At that time the driver of the Tipper Lorry without any signal suddenly
moved the Tipper Lorry in reverse in a rash and negligent manner. Due to the
sudden impact the petitioner fell down from the lorry on the bricks and the
accident happened. The petitioner sustained fracture and multiple grievous
injuries all over the body and immediatley she was admitted at Government
Hospital, Salem. Thereafter operation was done. Due to the accident, the
first respondent/claimant suffered multiple injuries all over her body and
she is unable to stand, sit and walk and do any work, hence claimed
compensation against the 2nd respondent and the appellant.
5. Challenging the said award dated 05.03.2018 made in
M.C.O.P.No.1185 of 2014, the appellant-Insurance Company has come up
with the present appeal questioning the liability fastened on them.
6. Though the appellant has raised grounds with regard to quantum of
compensation, at the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.435 of 2019
restricted his argument with regard to liability alone.
7. According to the appellant, the accident has not occurred as alleged
by the first respondent/claimant and the appellant denied the place of
accident. As per Ex.P.1/FIR, it was stated as if the accident occurred at
Mannarpalayam Settu's land but whereas in Ex.P.2. Wound certificate it is
stated due to accidental fall on 11.09.2012 at 4:30 p.m. at Mannarpalayam
Pririvu road the claimant suffered injuries. Hence, the Tribunal failed to
discuss about the contradiction with regard to the place of occurrence and
ought to have dismissed the claim petition. Further he submitted that the
complaint was given on 27.11.2012 i.e., after a delay of 78 days. The
petitioner was discharged from the hospital on 02.10.2012. From that date
itself, there was a delay of 57 days in lodging the FIR. The claimant had no
valid reason for the delay in lodging the FIR. The police after thorough
investigation referred the criminal case as mistake of fact and the same was
proved through Ex.R1. Hence, the Tribunal ought to have exonerated the
appellant-Insurance Company from its liability.
8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the
respondents and perused entire materials on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.435 of 2019
9. From the materials on record it is seen that it is a case of injury. The
injured lady aged 47 years was a coolie and doing loading and unloading
work in the brick kiln. The appellant-Insurance Company has questioned the
liability and submitted that the complaint has been given after 57 days i.e,
after the date of accident and that the police has closed the complaint as
mistake of fact and the Accident Register clearly states that it was an
accidental fall. According to the Insurance Company Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 give a
different version about the place of accident and that it cannot be treated as a
road accident and that the accident had taken place in a private place. The
Tribunal while considering the case of the claimant and the Insurance
Company came to the conclusion that there was an accident on 11.09.2012
and that even though a criminal case has been belatedly filed and has been
closed as mistake of fact, the driver of the Tipper lorry was responsible for
the accident and that the claimant suffered serious injuries and 25.2%
disability in the accident and the naration of injuries suffered is extracted
below:-
tpgj;jpy; kDjhuUf;F tyJ ,Lg;gpd; fPH;gFjpapy; vYk;g[ Kwpt[ Vw;gl;L ,Ug;gjhft[k;. kDjhuuhy;
,ay;ghf elf;f Koatpy;iy vd;Wk; tyJ ,Lg;gpd; mirt[fs; Fiwe;J ,Ug;gjhft[tk; jir
typik Fiwe;J ,Ug;gjhft[k; tyJ gf;f ,Lg;gpd; vYk;g[fspy; rk;kzk; nghl;L cl;fhuKoahJ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.435 of 2019
vd;Wk; ,e;jpad; tif fHptiwia gad;gLj;j KoahJ vd;Wk; ghwVwnth kw;Wk; rhpthd
gFjpfspy; elg;gJ Mfpatw;wpy; rpukk; cs;sJ vd;Wk; ePz;l neuk; bjhlh;e;J epw;fnth.
elf;fnth KoahJ vd;Wk; mjdhy; kDjhuUf;F 25.2% Cdk; ,Ug;gjhf fUj;J bjhptpj;J
kUj;Jtuhd k/rh/2. k/rh/2. k/rh/M5 Cdr; rhd;wpjiH tH';fpa[s;shh; kDjhuUf;F nkw;go tPjk;
bfhL';fhak; Vw;gltpy;iy vd;W vjph;kDjhuh;fs; jug;gpy; kWf;fg;gltpy;iy mjdhy; kDjhuUf;F
bfhL';fhak; Vw;gl;Ls;sij mwpa KofpwJ/
10. The fact remaining that the claimant sustained injury in a vehicle
which has got valid policy and merely because the accident took place in a
private place it cannot be stated that it was not a road accident. The finding of
the Tribunal that if the claimant had not suffered injury as alleged, then
proper enquiry should have been conducted by the Insurance Company to
prove their stand. In the absence of any such enquiry or any report the
Tribunal has rightly held that the claimant had met with an accident only due
to the negligence on the part of the driver of the Tipper lorry. No complaint
has been lodged that a false case has been foisted upon respondents 1 & 2.
The contention of the Insurance Company that they are not liable to pay
compensation to the injured cannot be accepted. Hence there is no error in the
finding of the Tribunal and the award is confirmed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.435 of 2019
11. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and
the award passed by the Tribunal is hereby confirmed. The Appellant-
Insurance Company and the second respondent owner of the Tipper Lorry are
directed to deposit the amount awarded by the Tribunal jointly or severally as
compensation to the claimant, along with interest and costs, less the amount
already deposited, if any, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt
of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to
withdraw the award amount along with interest and costs, after adjusting the
amount already withdrawn, if any, by making necessary applications before
the Tribunal. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions
are closed.
31.08.2021
dpq
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
To
1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Special Sub-Ordinate Court No.1,
Salem.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.435 of 2019
S. VAIDYANATHAN, J.
dpq
C.M.A.No.435 of 2019
31.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
