The Branch Manager vs P.Kannan : 1St
2021 Latest Caselaw 3084 Mad

                                                         1

                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                             DATED :09.02.2021

                                                   CORAM:

                            THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.KRISHNAVALLI

                                           C.M.A(MD)No.67 of 2015
                                                    and
                                             MP(MD)No.1 of 2015

                      The Branch Manager,
                      National Insurance Company Limited,
                      No.2-A, Thirumakulam North Street,
                      Thallakulam, Madurai.             : Appellant/2nd Respondent

                                                       Vs.

                      1.P.Kannan                             : 1st Respondent/Claimant
                      2.B.Pandiyammal                        : 2nd Respondent/R1

                             PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under
                      Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the award, dated
                      13.12.2012 made in MCOP No.989 of 2009 on the file of Motor
                      Accident Claims Tribunal (V Additional District), Madurai.


                                  For Appellant          : Mr.R.Srinivasan

                                  For 1st Respondent     : Mr.P.Thiagarajan

                                 For 2nd Respondent      : Died, vide order,
                                                           Dated 14.12.2017




http://www.judis.nic.in
                                                        2

                                                   JUDGMENT

Challenge made in this appeal is to the award passed by the

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (V Additional District Court),

Madurai, in MCOP No.989 of 2009, dated 13.12.2012.

2.The brief facts of the case are that on 15.08.2008 at 19.00

hours, when the claimant travelled as an agent of the goods in the

Lorry TN-60-B-5787 from Kodaikanal to Madurai, the driver of the

Lorry drove it in front of Sunny Karkta Estate in a rash and

negligent manner and dashed against the Wall of the said Estate

and capsized. Due to the impact, the claimant sustained multiple

grievous injuries. The injured claimant filed a claim petition

seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- on the ground that the

driver of the Lorry was responsible for the accident.

3.The claimant has stated that at the time of the accident, his

age was 25 and he was working as a Arch Light Setter/Building

Labour and was earning Rs.200/- per day. A criminal case in

Crime No.300 of 2008 was registered against the driver of the

Lorry by Kodaikanal Police.

4.The claim was opposed by the appellant Insurance

Company disputing the manner of accident and their liability to pay

compensation.

http://www.judis.nic.in

5.The Tribunal, upon consideration of oral and documentary

evidence, came to the conclusion that the driver of the Lorry was

responsible for the accident and awarded compensation of Rs.

68,900/- with interest @ 7.5 % p.a. Aggrieved by the award of the

tribunal, the appellant Insurance Company is before this court.

6.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on

record.

7.It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that

the claimant travelled in a goods vehicle, which is against the

provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and Insurance Act and since the

claimant has travelled as an unauthorized passenger and the owner

of the Lorry has not paid any amount as premium for the

unauthorized passenger, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay

any compensation. It is further submitted that the quantum of

award is on the higher side, so the quantum is to be reduced. On

the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent/claimant

submitted that the award is reasonable, which does not warrant

any interference of this court.

http://www.judis.nic.in

8.It is seen from the records that at the time of accident, the

offending vehicle was insured with the appellant Insurance

Company. Hence, the Appellant Insurance Company is liable to pay

the compensation to the claimant and then recover the same from

the owner of the vehicle. PW1 is the injured as well as the eye

witness to the accident. A criminal case was registered against the

driver of the Lorry. Ex.P1 FIR stands registered based on the

complaint given by PW1. Ex.P3 charge sheet would show that after

investigation, the police filed a final report against the Driver of the

Lorry. PW1 has given evidence stating that he sustained partial

permanent disability due to fracture on the left side hip bone and

also sustained head injury and he could not walk or stand for a

prolong time and he was not able to do his regular work. It is seen

from Ex.P2 discharge summary, the claimant took treatment as

inpatient from 16.08.2008 to 03.09.2008. Ex.P4 is the Disability

Certificate. Ex.P5 is the X-ray.

9.PW3 Dr.S.Shanmugam has deposed that he examined the

claimant and found that the claimant had sustained grievous

injuries, dislocation of left hip bone and he assessed 30% partial

permanent disability and issued Ex.P4 Disability Certificate to the

http://www.judis.nic.in

claimant. PW3 further deposed that he assessed the disability of

the claimant, after lapse of 4 years from the date of accident.

Based on the evidence, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion

that the claimant has suffered 23% partial permanent disability and

awarded Rs.46,000/- under the head. The Tribunal awarded Rs.

1,900/- towards loss of earning, Rs.1,000/- for transportation, Rs.

10,000/- for extra nourishment and Rs.10,000/- towards pain and

sufferings, totally Rs.68,900/- together with interest @ 7.5.% p.a

and directed the Insurance Company to pay the amount and then

recover from the owner of the Lorry. In the considered view of this

court, the award is fair and reasonable and therefore, it is

confirmed.

10.In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed,

confirming the award of the tribunal. No costs. Consequently,

connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

09.02.2021 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No er

http://www.judis.nic.in

T.KRISHNAVALLI.J.,

er

To

1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/ V Additional District Court, Madurai.

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

C.M.A(MD)No.67 of 2015

09.02.2021

http://www.judis.nic.in