Madras High Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Kannammal on 10 February, 2021
C.M.A.No.2311 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
CMA.No.2311 of 2010
National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Bypass Road
Dharmapuri 636 701. ... Appellant
..Vs..
1.Kannammal
2.D.Yusuff ... Respondents
Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, against the award and decree dated 26.04.2007 made in
M.C.O.P.No.513 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Additional District Court, Dharmapuri.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Arun Kumar
For Respondents : R1- No appearance
R2- Notice unserved
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2311 of 2010
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the
appellant/Insurance Company against the judgment and decree dated
26.04.2007, made in MCOP.No.513 of 2005 on the file of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Dharmapuri.
2. According to the first respondent herein/claimant that
on 27.05.2003, the claimant herein and others were travelling on the
mini lorry bearing Reg.No.KA19 5536, after unloading mangoes.
When the vehicle was proceeding on the Irumathur Main Road, at
about 06.00 p.m., the driver of the mini lorry drove it at high speed
in a negligent manner and swerved the vehicle in order to avoid
collusion with a bus coming in the opposite direction. As a result of
which, the the mini lorry capsized and the claimant sustained
injuries. Hence, the claim petition in MCOP.No.513 of 2005, had
been filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2311 of 2010
District Court, Dharmapuri, against the owner and insurer of the
mini lorry bearing Reg.No.KA19 5536. Hence, the first
respondent/claimant made a claim for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as
compensation.
3. The appellant/Insurance Company filed a counter
statement and resisted the claim petition. The Insurance Company
denied the manner of accident, age, occupation, income and nature
of injuries and mode of treatment of the claimants. It was submitted
that about 50 persons had travelled in the mini lorry as unauthorized
passengers including that of the the claimant herein and other
claimants. It was submitted that the owner of the vehicle had paid
premium only for six employees including the driver and cleaner.
4. Before the Tribunal, the first respondent/claimant
examined herself as PW1 and Dr.Thiruvenkadam was examined as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2311 of 2010
PW2 and 7 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P7. On the side of
the appellant/Insurance Company, one Thimmaraj was examined as
RW1 and Insurance Policy was marked as Ex.R1.
5. On considering the evidences of the claimant and the
Doctor, the Tribunal had awarded compensation of a sum of
Rs.1,63,817- with interest 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved by the said
award, the Insurance Company has filed the above appeal.
6. Challenging the said award, the appellant/Insurance
Company preferred the present appeal before this Court.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance
Company submits that more than 15 unauthorized persons had
travelled on the goods vehicle and as such the owner of the vehicle
had violated the policy and permit conditions and therefore, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2311 of 2010
Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. The
submission made by the claimants that they had travelled as load
men had not been proved by substantial evidence. The very
competent counsel for the Insurance Company further submits that
totally seven claim petitions had been filed for the same accident,
but premium has only been paid for six persons. Hence, the learned
counsel expects the Court to set aside the award.
8. On verifying the factual position of the case and
arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and on
perusing the impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court does not
find any discrepancy in the conclusions arrived at regarding
negligence, liability and quantum of compensation.
9. This Court is of the further view that the first
information report has been registered against the driver of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2311 of 2010
offending vehicle and subsequently charge sheet has also been filed
against him. Therefore, negligence has been proved. As per the
contentions of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company,
premium has been remitted to cover risk of six persons. But, before
this Court, only five injured claimants had sought remedy.
Therefore, the liability of the Insurance Company has also been
decided as per the policy conditions. The compensation amount has
been decided as per the Doctor's evidence and disability certificate.
Therefore, the quantum of compensation had been assessed in an
appropriate manner. Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain the
appeal.
10. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that
there is no merit in this appeal and it is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed and the compensation awarded
by the Tribunal at Rs.1,63,817/- together with interest at the rate of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2311 of 2010
7.5% per annum is confirmed. The appellant/Insurance Company is
directed to deposit the award amount along with interest and costs,
less the amount already deposited, within a period of twelve weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, to the credit of
M.C.O.P.No.513 of 2005. On such deposit, the first
respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the award amount,
after adjusting the amount, if any, already withdrawn, by filing
necessary applications before the Tribunal. No costs.
10.02.2021
Internet : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
dna
To
The Additional District Judge,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Dharmapuri.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2311 of 2010
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.,
dna
CMA.No.2311 of 2010
10.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
