The New India Assurance Company ... vs Annalakshmi
2021 Latest Caselaw 2080 Mad

                            BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                              DATED 01.02.2021

                                                    CORAM

                          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM

                                          C.M.A(MD)No.698 of 2010
                                                    and
                                      M.P(MD)Nos.1 of 2010 and 1 of 2011

                      The New India Assurance Company Ltd.,
                      Door No.41-B, Victoria Street,
                      Thoothukudi,
                      Through its Branch Manager
                                                                                .. Appellant

                                                    vs.

                      1.Annalakshmi
                      2.Iyyampandi
                      3.Thibarsian
                                                                             ...Respondents

                      Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
                      Vehicles Act 1988 against the award dated 02.12.2009 and made in
                      MCOP No.707 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
                      Tribunal, II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli.


                                  For Appellant       : Mr.K.Murugesan
                                  For Respondents     : Mr.V.Sasikumar (for R1 and R2)
                                                        Mr.G.Venugopal for
                                                        Mr.M.P.Senthil (for R3)


                      1/6


http://www.judis.nic.in
                                                   JUDGMENT

                            The appellant in this appeal challenges the award passed by the

                      Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli

                      in MCOP No.707 of 2008 dated 02.12.2009.



                            2.Facts

of the case in brief are that the parents of the deceased

Arulraj, who died in a motor vehicle accident that took place on

19.03.2008, filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.

15,00,000/-. According to them, on 19.03.2008, the deceased Arulraj

along with one Purachiselvan travelled in the cabin of the van bearing

registration No.TN-69-K.3118 which owned by the third respondent

herein and insured with the appellant. It is the further case that the

vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner and hence, the driver

lost control of the vehicle and it got capsized. In the accident, the

deceased Arulraj sustained grievous injuries all over body and later

succumbed to the injuries.

http://www.judis.nic.in

3.The claim was resisted by the appellant contending that the

accident had occurred due to over loading of the persons in the van at the

time of accident. Totally 5 persons travelled in the van, which is against

the seating capacity and permit condition. Since there are violation of

policy conditions, the insurance company cannot be made to pay

compensation.

4.To prove the negligence, the claimant examined P.W.2 Mahesh,

who witnessed the accident. He deposed that he travelled along with

goods on the rear portion of the vehicle and it was driven by the driver in

a rash and negligent manner. On account of which, the vehicle was

capsized and the co-passenger Arulraj sustained injuries. In the First

Information Report (Ex.P.1), P.Ws' names were mentioned. Since there

was no contra evidence, the Tribunal held that the occurrence had taken

place due to negligent of the driver of the van.

5.Insofar as the quantum is concerned, the Tribunal found that the

deceased was a Bachelor and he died at the age of 26 years. The mother

http://www.judis.nic.in of the deceased was 53 years. Ex.P.6 discloses that the deceased has

successfully passed Diploma in Civil Engineering and he was working as

Technical Assistant Grade I in the Government Department and hence,

monthly income was fixed at Rs.5,550/- and after deducting 50% towards

his personal expenses, the contribution is taken at Rs.2,775/- and by

applying multiplier '11', the Tribunal held that the claimants are entitled

for Rs.3,66,300/- (2775 x 12 x 11). In addition, Rs.5,000/ was awarded

for funeral expenses; Rs.10,000/- was awarded towards future prospects

and Rs.2,500/- was awarded towards loss of estate. In total, the Tribunal

has awarded Rs.3,93,800/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per

annum.

6.The contention of the appellant that they are not liable to pay

compensation was rejected by the Tribunal for the reason that R.W.1, the

Administrative Officer of the appellant in his evidence has admitted that

as per Ex.R1 policy, 6 employees can travel since additional premium

was collected for covering employees. This Court does not find any

illegality or irregularity in the conclusion reached by the Tribunal.

Hence, the award of the Tribunal is liable to be confirmed.

http://www.judis.nic.in

8.In that view, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Since

the appeal is dismissed, the appellant/Insurance Company is directed to

deposit the entire award amount with accrued interest and costs, less the

amount already deposited, if any, within a period of eight weeks from the

date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the claimants are

permitted to withdraw the award amount as apportioned by the Tribunal,

less the amount already withdrawn, if any, together with proportionate

interest and costs. No costs.

16.10.2020

Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No skn To

1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Court, Tuticorin.

2.The Record Keeper, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

http://www.judis.nic.in K.KALYANASUNDARAM.,J

skn

JUDGMENT MADE IN

C.M.A(MD)No.698 of 2010

01.02.2021

http://www.judis.nic.in