Madras High Court
M/S Reliance General Insurance ... vs C.Poulinamary on 2 December, 2021
C.M.A.No.3368 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
C.M.A.No.3368 of 2021
and
C.M.P.No.19427 of 2021
M/s Reliance General Insurance Co., Ltd.,
Avinashi Road,
Coimbatore – 18. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.C.Poulinamary
2.Minor Sanjith
3.Minor Sanjana
4.Bhagayalakshmi
5.Balasubramani
6.K.Jamesha Ibrahim
7.Ummar Hathaf
... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act 1988 against the Judgment and Decree dated 20.03.2020 made in
MCOP No.1113 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, V
Additional District Judge, Coimbatore.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3368 of 2021
For Appellant : Mr.S.Arun Kumar
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by V.SIVAGNANAM, J.]
This appeal arises out of the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, V Additional District Judge, Coimbatore in MCOP No.1113 of 2017
dated 20.03.2020.
2.This is the case of fatal accident. The case of the claimants is that on
06.01.2017 at 19.00 hours, the deceased Chandrasekar was pedestrian from north
to south at Thanner Pandal road in front of Raja Saloon, Coimbatore. At that
time, a Honda bike bearing Reg.No.TN-99-8029 came from north to south
direction in a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased. In the impact, the
deceased was sustained grievous injuries on the head. Immediately, he was taken
to the C.M.C Hospital, where he died. The claimants are the legal heirs of the
deceased. Alleging that the accident had taken place due to the rash and
negligent riding of the rider of the Honda Bike, the claimants laid a petition,
claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3368 of 2021
3.Resisting the claim, the rider of the two wheeler filed his counter stating
that the rider of the two wheeler rode the vehicle in a very slow speed by obeying
the traffic rules and the deceased was in drunken stage and dashed against the two
wheeler. Since the deceased voluntarily invited the accident, the first respondent
is not responsible for the accident.
4.Resisting the claim, the appellant Insurance Company filed their counter
disputing the manner of accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased and
its liability to pay the compensation. In the counter, it had been stated that the
rider of the two wheeler had no proper valid driving licence to drive the vehicle at
the time of accident. Further, there is no proof that the deceased was died
because of the accident. Hence, the appellant Insurance Company has no liability
to indemnify the first respondent's liability. It was also contended that the claim
is excessive and exorbitant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3368 of 2021
5.To substantiate the case, on the side of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 3 were
examined and Exs.P1 to Ex.P.13 were marked. On the side of the
appellant/Insurance Company, R.W.1 one Vignesh, Legal Department was
examined and Exs.R.1 to R3 were marked.
6.The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, held
that the rider of the two wheeler was responsible for the accident and awarded
compensation of Rs.31,21,700/- to the claimants. Assailing the award, the
appellant Insurance Company has filed the present appeal.
7.Heard Mr.S.Arun Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant
Insurance Company and perused the materials available on record.
8.This appeal has been filed only challenging the quantum, hence, the other
issues need not be dealt with herein.
9.Though the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3368 of 2021
Company has contended that the award is on the higher side and it requires
reduction, on perusal of the records, we find that the Tribunal, on proper
appreciation of evidence of salary certificate (Ex.P.10), has fixed the monthly
income and adopting correct multiplier awarded a just and reasonable
compensation. Further, the quantum of compensation under remaining heads
were fixed by the Tribunal by following the Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Pranay Sethi and
others reported in 2017(2) TNMAC 609 (SC) and Magma General Insurance
Co. Ltd., vs. Nanu Ram and others reported in 2018(1) TN MAC 452 (SC),
We find no reason to interfere with the conclusion reached by the Tribunal. This
appeal has no merit.
10.For the foregoing reasons, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal fails and the
same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
[M.K.K.S.,J.] [V.S.G.,J.]
02.12.2021
skn
Intex : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3368 of 2021
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
V Additional District Judge, Coimbatore.
2.V.R.Section,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3368 of 2021
K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.
and
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
skn
JUDGMENT MADE IN
C.M.A.No.3368 of 2021
and
C.M.P.No.19427 of 2021
02.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
