Madras High Court
United India Insurance Co. vs Kavitha on 7 December, 2021
C.M.A.(MD)No.1261 of 2011
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 07.12.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
C.M.A.(MD)No.1261 of 2011
and
M.P(MD)No.3 of 2011
United India Insurance Co., Ltd.,
New No.788, First Floor,
Indian Building,
Coimbatore – 18,
Coimbatore District. ...Appellant/Respondent No.2
Vs.
1.Kavitha
2.Minor Azhagu Gayathri
3.Minor Muthuraman
4.Sornam ...Respondent Nos.1 to 4/Petitioners
5.P.Periakaruppan ...5th Respondent / 1st Respondent
6.Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
Rep. by its
Administrate Director,
Kumbakonam Division 3,
Maruthupathi Nagar, Karaikudi,
Sivagangai District. ...6th Respondent/3rd Respondent
(Minor respondents 2 and 3 represented by
their mother and natural guardian 1st respondent)
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.1261 of 2011
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act 1988, to set aside the order of the Tribunal of Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal Cum Sub Court, Devakottai made in M.C.O.P.No.117 of
2006, dated 03.09.2010.
For Appellant :Mr.C.Jawahar Ravindran
For R1 to R3 :Mr.N.Tamilmani
For R4 to R6 :No Appearance
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant to set aside
the judgment and decree made in M.C.O.P.No.117 of 2006, dated 03.09.2010
on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Cum Sub Court,
Devakottai.
2.It is a case of fatal accident. On 16.04.2006 the deceased was
driving a Minidor Vehicle, bearing Registration No.TN-63-W-7877 towards
Managiri with due care and caution observing the traffic rules. When the
vehicle came near Regulated Market, at that time the driver of the third
respondent, who drove the bus bearing Registration No.TN-29-N-0922 in a
rash and negligent manner suddenly came to his right without due care and
caution dashed against the Minidor Van. Due to the said accident, the
deceased sustained grievous injuries and died.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.1261 of 2011
3.The claimants have filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.117 of 2006
on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Cum Sub Court,
Devakottai, seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.
4.Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants, two witnesses were
examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and marked seven documents as Exs.P.1 to P.7.
On the side of the respondents, one witness was examined as R.W.1 and one
document was marked as Ex.R1.
5.The Tribunal, after considering the pleadings, oral and documentary
evidences and the arguments of the counsel for the claimants and the
respondents and also on appreciating the evidences on record, held that the
accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver
of the 5th respondent vehicle and directed the appellant herein to pay a sum
of Rs.7,01,500/- as compensation.
6.Against which, the appellant/second respondent has filed this present
appeal to set aside the award of compensation passed by the Tribunal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.1261 of 2011
7.Heard Mr.C.Jawahar Ravindran, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and Mr.N.Tamilmani, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents 1 to 3. No representation for the respondents R4 to R6.
8.The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submitted that
even according to the claimants, in their petition as well as in their evidence,
it is stated that the driver drove the bus in high speed and therefore, he was
negligent. The learned counsel pointed out that even if there is a contributory
negligence, the contribution of the driver of the lorry is much lesser than the
contribution of the driver of the bus. He further submitted that according to
the Motor Vehicle Report, both the vehicles damaged on the front side. So it
clearly shows that the accident is a head on collusion. According to the
evidence, only the bus driver is liable for the accident. But the FIR has been
falsely registered against the deceased van driver. In this regard, the he
placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
T.O.Anthony V. Karvarnan and Others reported in 2008 ACJ 1165.
9.Perusal of the records would show that the driver of the State
Transport Corporation contributed much more than the driver of the Minidor
Lorry. Therefore, negligence is fixed at 75% towards the driver of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.1261 of 2011
Transport Corporation bus and 25% towards the driver of the Minidor lorry.
As far as the quantum is concerned, it is just and reasonable.
10.In the result,
(i)The civil miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed. No costs. The
award of the Tribunal is confirmed. Therefore, the present
appellant/Insurance Company is liable to pay only 25% and the 6th
r
espondent/State Transport Corporation is directed to pay 75% of the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal together with proportionate interest at
the rate of 6% interest from the date of appeal till the date of payment to the
credit of MCOP.No.117 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal / Sub Court, Devakottai within a period of six weeks from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order.
(ii) The learned counsel appearing for the present appellant – United
India Insurance Company Limited submitted that they have already deposited
50% of the entire compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, they are
permitted to withdraw the balance (25% of the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal together with proportionate interest), after following due process of
law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.1261 of 2011
(iii) The respondents 1 and 4 herein are permitted to withdraw their
share of compensation, as apportioned by the Tribunal, after following due
process of law.
(iv) The second and third respondents herein are minor, and therefore,
their share of compensation amount, as apportioned by the Tribunal, is
ordered to be deposited in any one of the nationalized bank, in a Fixed
Deposit, initially for a period of three years, renewable thereafter, until they
attain majority, and the first respondent herein is permitted to withdraw the
interest directly from the bank, once in three months in order to maintain the
minors. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
07.12.2021
Index :Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
vsd
Note:In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web
copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the
copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the Advocate/litigant concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.1261 of 2011
To
1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Cum Sub Court,
Devakottai.
2.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.1261 of 2011
S.ANANTHI, J.
vsd
Judgment made in
C.M.A.(MD)No.1261 of 2011
and
M.P(MD)No.3 of 2011
07.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
