Madras High Court
M/S.Reliance General Insurance ... vs S.Gowtham on 6 December, 2021
C.M.A.No.1688 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.KANNAMMAL
C.M.A.No.1688 of 2018
M/s.Reliance General Insurance Company Limited,
No.408, Third Floor,
Perundurai Road, Erode. .. Appellant
Vs.
1.S.Gowtham
2.P.Vasanthi .. Respondents
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated 01.09.2017
made in M.C.O.P.No.708 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Special Subordinate Court No.1, Salem.
For Appellant : M/s.M.B.Gopalan Associates
For R1 : Mr.T.S.Arthanareeswaran
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1688 of 2018
JUDGMENT
The matter is heard through “Video Conferencing/Hybrid mode”.
2.This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed to set aside the award
dated 01.09.2017 made in M.C.O.P.No.708 of 2012 on the file of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special Subordinate Court No.1, Salem.
3.The appellant is the 2nd respondent in M.C.O.P.No.708 of 2012 on the
file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special Subordinate Court No.1,
Salem. The 1st respondent filed the said claim petition claiming a sum of
Rs.30,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the
accident that took place on 02.01.2012.
4.According to 1st respondent, on 02.01.2012 at about 02.30 P.M., while
he was riding the motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN 25 L 7315 to give
mid day meals to his father at his place near Perumal Koil Malai Adivaram,
Sembankadu, Trichengodu, the driver of the tipper Lorry bearing Registration
No.TN 48 P 8687, owned by 2nd respondent, drove the same in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed against the 1st respondent due to which the 1st
respondent fell down from the motorcycle and sustained grievous injuries.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1688 of 2018
Therefore, the 1st respondent filed the claim petition, claiming a sum of
Rs.30,00,000/- as compensation, against the 2nd respondent and the appellant-
Insurance Company, being the owner and insurer of the tipper Lorry
respectively.
5.The 2nd respondent, owner of the tipper Lorry, remained exparte before
the Tribunal.
6.The appellant/Insurance Company filed a counter statement denying
the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the claimant was
minor at the time of accident and he drove the motorcycle without a valid
driving licence. He further contended that the injured claimant suddenly turned
the motorcycle without blowing a horn. Therefore, the first respondent has to
prove his age, income, nature of injuries, medical expenses incurred due to the
injuries sustained by him in the accident by producing documentary evidence.
In any event, the total amount claimed as compensation is highly excessive and
prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
7.Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent examined himself as P.W.1 and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1688 of 2018
marked 15 documents as Exs.P1 to P15. The appellant, did not let in any oral
or documentary evidence before the Tribunal. In addition to that, Ex.C1 and
Ex.C2 were marked as Court documents.
8.The Tribunal, considering the pleadings, oral and documentary
evidence, held that the accident had occurrd due to the rash and negligent
driving of the tipper Lorry bearing Registration No. TN 48 P 8687, owned by
the 2nd respondent and therefore directed the appellant/Insurance Company to
pay a sum of Rs.8,65,679/- as compensation to the 1st respondent.
9.To set aside the said award dated 01.09.2017 made in
M.C.O.P.No.708 of 2012, the appellant has come up with the present appeal.
10.Questioning the quantum of the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal, the learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the Tribunal
has not properly appreciated the evidence available on record and held that the
accident had occurred only due to the negligence of the tipper lorry and thus,
erroneously fixed the liability on the appellant. He would further contend that
the Tribunal has also failed to appreciate that there could be no permanent loss
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1688 of 2018
of income due to the injuries sustained by the injured and wrongly adopted the
multiplier method. He also pointed out that the Tribunal has erroneously
awarded towards loss of earning and on other heads excessively. Therefore, the
learned counsel for the appellant seeks to set aside the award passed by the
Tribunal.
11.On a perusal of the award passed by the Tribunal, it appears that the
Tribunal has considered each and every aspect as regards the occurrence of the
accident, grievous injuries sustained by the injured and various other aspects
and has rightly awarded the compensation. In fact, the Tribunal has considered
the fact that there was no evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant to prove
that the accident had not occured due to the negligent on the part of the driver
of the tipper lorry and as such, the Tribunal has rightly fixed the liability on the
2nd respondent and the appellant/Insurance Company. As regards the injuries
sustained by the 1st respondent and he was referred to the Medical Board,
where it was assessed that the first respondent has sustained 60% disability.
While so, the Tribunal has fixed only 40% disability and therefore, this Court
does not find any infirmity to reduce further. Though the injured claimant was
minor at the time of accident, the Tribunal, considering the fact that due to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1688 of 2018
injuries sustained by him, he would not be in a position to earn, fixed a sum of
Rs.7,000/- per month as monthly income of the injured/claimant to meet the
ends of justice and thus, calculated the loss of income by adopting multiplier
method and arrived at Rs.6,04,800/-, which, in the opinion of this Court, just
and proper and does not require any interference. As regards the compensation
awarded under various heads, including medical expenses, the Tribunal has
rightly awarded just compensation which also cannot be interfered with. For
the forgoing reasons, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the
award passed by the Tribunal.
12.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and a sum
of Rs.8,65,679/- awarded by the Tribunal as compensation to the 1st
respondent, along with interest and costs, is confirmed. The appellant-
Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award amount, along with
interest and costs, less the amount if any already deposited, within a period of
six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, to the credit of
M.C.O.P.No.708 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Special Subordinate Court No.1, Salem. On such deposit, the 1st respondent is
permitted to withdraw the award amount along with interest and costs, after
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1688 of 2018
adjusting the amount if any already withdrawn, by filing necessary application
before the Tribunal. No costs.
06.12.2021
gbi
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
To
1.The Special Subordinate Court No.1,
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Salem.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1688 of 2018
S.KANNAMMAL, J.
gbi
C.M.A.No.1688 of 2018
06.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
