Madras High Court
The United India Insurance ... vs Manikkavasagar ... 1St on 23 February, 2021
CMA No.2318 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated 23.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
CMA.No.2318 of 2014 and
M.P.No.1 of 2014
The United India Insurance Company Ltd.
13A, Nethaji Road, Manjakuppam,
Cuddalore. ... Appellant/ second respondent
Vs.
1. Manikkavasagar ... 1st respondent/ claimant
2. R.Vetrivelan ... 2nd respondent/ 1st respondent
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the decree and
judgment dated 28.03.2014 passed in MCOP No.2255 of 2009 by the
Principal Subordinate Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Cuddalore.
For Appellant : Mr.D.Bhaskaran
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.2318 of 2014
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved over the orders passed by the Tribunal, the
appellant/ insurance company has filed the present appeal challenging
the liability as well as the quantum of compensation.
2. The claimant has filed a claim petition under Section
163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, before the Tribunal seeking
compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a
road accident that took place on 18.05.2009
3. The brief case of the claimants is as follows: On
18.05.2009 at about 7.00 p.m. the claimant was riding his motorcycle
along Vadalur Kurinjipadi Road and while nearing Vadalur, a paddy
harvester bearing registration No.TN-21-Q-4857 coming from opposite
side, hit the motorcycle, thereby, he sustained injuries. According to the
claimant, the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the harvester
was the cause of accident, and since the first respondent insured his
vehicle with the second respondent, both of them are liable to pay
compensation to them.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.2318 of 2014
4. The second respondent/ Insurance Company resisted the
claim petition by filing counter affidavit.
5. Before Tribunal, on the side of the claimants, the first
claimant and one another witness were examined as PW1 and PW2
respectively and Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 were marked. On the side of the
insurance company, no oral and documentary evidence was adduced.
6. After analysing the evidence on record, the Tribunal has
awarded a sum of Rs.1,21,968/- as compensation to the claimant under
various heads as extracted hereunder.
Sl Heads Amount in
No Rs.
1 Disability (3300 x 12 x 16 x 13%) 82,368
2 Loss of future income 3300x2 6,600
3 Pain and sufferings 20,000
4 Medical expenses 5,000
5 Transportation charges 5,000
6 Extra Nourishment 3,000
Total 1,21,968
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.2318 of 2014
Aggrieved over the orders passed by the Tribunal, the insurance
company has filed the present appeal.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and I have
perused the materials on record.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant
contended that there is no liability as against the insurance company to
pay compensation to the claimant, since he did not possess valid driving
licence at the time of accident. He further submitted that as per Ex.P5
Accident Register, he was under influence of alcohol and that the motor
cycle drew by the claimant had no insurance cover on the date of
accident. Therefore, it is contended by him that the claimant is a tort-
feaser and the claim of tort-feaser is not maintainable and hence, the
award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside.
9. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that in an
identical case in CMA No.2547 of 2013, this court by order dated
08.02.2021 has decided that the grounds raised by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.2318 of 2014
appellant/insurance company is not sustainable. The relevant
paragraphs are extracted hereunder.
7. It is brought to the notice of this court that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.
Sunil Kumar and another (Civil Appeal No.9694 of 2013,
dated 24.11.2017) in paragraph 9, has held that in a
proceeding under Sec.163-A of the Act, it is open for the
insurer to raise any defence of negligence on the part of
the victim.
8. The aforesaid judgment is squarely apply to the facts of
the case in hand. The learned counsel appearing for the
appellant cannot dispute the dictum laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, in the light of the
decision cited supra, the grounds raised by the
appellant/insurance company is not sustainable. The
appellant has no grievance in so far as the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
10. For the reasons stated above, this court is of the view
that the Tribunal has rightly passed the award in favour of the claimant.
Hence, there is no warrant to interfere with the award passed by the
Tribunal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.2318 of 2014
11. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is
dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
23.02.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking/non Speaking order
mst
To
1. The Principal Subordinate Court, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Cuddalore.
2. The United India Insurance Company Ltd.
13A, Nethaji Road, Manjakuppam, Cuddalore.
3. The Section Officer, V.R. Section, Madras High Court, Chennai-104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.2318 of 2014
D. KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
mst
CMA. No.2318 of 2014 and
M.P.No.1 of 2014
23.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
