Madras High Court
The Branch Manager vs Duraisamy on 3 February, 2021
C.M.A.No.219 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
C.M.A. No.219 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.1474 of 2021
The Branch Manager,
National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
1st Floor, Jerom Building,
Kottai Station Road, Trichy. .. Appellant
Vs.
1.Duraisamy
2.Velumurugan .. Respondents
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 26.09.2018, made
in M.C.O.P. No.125 of 2017, on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
(Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Ariyalur.
For Appellant : Mr.J.Chandran
For Respondents : Mr.T.Gobinath (For R1)
___
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.219 of 2021
JUDGMENT
The matter is heard through "Video Conferencing".
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant-
Insurance Company against the judgment and decree dated 26.09.2018, made
in M.C.O.P. No.125 of 2017, on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
(Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Ariyalur.
2.By consent of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well
as the 1st respondent, the appeal is taken up for final disposal at the admission
stage itself.
3.The appellant is the 2nd respondent in M.C.O.P. No.125 of 2017, on
the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal),
Ariyalur. The 1st respondent/claimant filed the said claim petition, claiming a
sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the
accident that took place on 13.12.2015.
___
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.219 of 2021
4.According to the 1st respondent, on the date of accident, while he was
returning to his house after attending the condolence at Sedakudikadu, by
walk, near Shivan temple, Erikkarai from East to West on the left side of the
road, the rider of a Motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-61-C-1766
belonging to the 2nd respondent rode the same in a rash and negligent manner
and dashed on the 1st respondent and caused the accident. In the accident, the
1st respondent sustained severe injuries. The accident occurred only due to
rash and negligent riding by rider of the Motorcycle. Hence, filed the said
claim petition, claiming compensation against the 2nd respondent as owner
and appellant as insurer of the offending vehicle.
5.The 2nd respondent, owner of the Motorcycle, remained exparte
before the Tribunal.
6.The appellant-Insurance Company, filed counter statement and
denied all the averments made by the 1st respondent in the claim petition.
___
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.219 of 2021
According to the appellant, at the time of accident, rider of the Motorcycle
rode the same slowly and carefully, following traffic rules. The accident
occurred only when the 1st respondent suddenly crossed the road without
seeing the oncoming vehicle. Inspite of all sincere efforts by the rider of 2nd
respondent vehicle to avert the accident, the 1st respondent himself dashed
against the vehicle and contributed to the accident. The rider of the
Motorcycle did not possess valid driving license to ply the vehicle at the time
of accident. In any event, the 1st respondent has to prove the age, avocation
and income, injuries sustained and disability suffered by him, to claim
compensation and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
7.Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent examined himself as P.W.1,
examined Doctor as P.W.2 and marked 13 documents as Exs.P1 to P13. The
appellant examined the Junior Assistant of R.T.O, Ariyalur as R.W.1, Sub-
Inspector of Police as R.W.2, their Administrative Manager as R.W.3 and
marked 4 documents as Exs.R1 to R4.
___
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.219 of 2021
8.The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary
evidence, held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent
riding by rider of the Motorcycle belonging to the 2nd respondent and directed
the appellant as insurer of the said vehicle to pay a sum of Rs.3,97,338.50/- as
compensation to the 1st respondent.
9.Challenging the award granted by the Tribunal dated 26.09.2018,
made in M.C.O.P. No.125 of 2017, the appellant - Insurance Company has
come out with the present appeal.
10.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company
contended that 1st respondent sustained only simple injuries and the Tribunal
has granted excess amount of Rs.3,97,338.50/- for a 70 years old person. The
Tribunal ought to have disbelieved the disability certificate issued by P.W.2
Doctor and granted lesser amount. The disability assessed by P.W.2 Doctor is
only 75%. The Tribunal granted compensation for 100% disability by fixing
the monthly income at Rs.6,000/-. The total compensation granted by the
___
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.219 of 2021
Tribunal is excessive and prayed for setting aside the award of the Tribunal.
11.Mr.T.Gobinath, learned counsel takes notice for the 1st respondent
and submitted that the Insurance Company has deposited the entire award
amount and the 1st respondent has also withdrawn the amount deposited by
the appellant-Insurance Company.
12.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance
Company as well as the 1st respondent and perused the materials available on
record.
13.From the materials available on record, it is seen that in the
accident, the 1st respondent suffered injuries, taken treatment at Jipmer
Hospital, Pondicherry, from 13.12.2015 to 19.12.2015 and produced Exs.P2
to P4, P8 and P10 to P13 – medical records to prove the treatment taken. He
was referred to the Medical Board. The Medical Board assessed that the 1 st
respondent suffered 75% disability. P.W.2 Doctor examined the 1st respondent
___
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.219 of 2021
and certified that the 1st respondent suffered 75% partial permanent disability.
The 1st respondent filed Exs.P12 and P13 – disability certificates to that
effect. The Tribunal considering the nature of injuries and disability
certificates, fixed the monthly income as Rs.6,000/- and by applying
multiplier '5', granted a sum of Rs.3,60,000/- towards disability,
Rs.30,338.50/- towards medical expenses and Rs.7,000/- towards
transportation. The accident is of the year 2015. The appellant has not
examined any Doctor to disprove the evidence of P.W.2 Doctor and disability
certificates issued by P.W.2-Doctor and Medical Board. Even if percentage
method is adopted, the 1st respondent is entitled to Rs.4,000/- per percentage
for disability, which comes to Rs.3,00,000/- for 75% disability. In addition to
that, the Tribunal has not awarded any amount for attendant charges, extra
nourishment, loss of clothes and articles and loss of income. In view of the
same, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not interfered with.
14.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the
amount awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.3,97,338.50/- together with interest at
___
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.219 of 2021
the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit is
confirmed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No
costs.
03.02.2021
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
gsa
To
1.The Chief Judicial Magistrate,
(Motor Accident Claims Tribunal),
Ariyalur.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R Section,
High Court, Madras.
___
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.219 of 2021
V.M.VELUMANI, J.,
gsa
C.M.A. No.219 of 2021
03.02.2021
___
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
