Madras High Court
The United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Guhan Veliyappa : R1/Petitioner on 23 February, 2021
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 23.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.KRISHNAVALLI
CMA(MD)Nos.540 to 542 of 2015
The United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Divisional Manager,
Office at 7, United Towers,
Baseerpak, Hyderabad. : Appellant/2nd Respondent
Vs.
1.Guhan Veliyappa : R1/Petitioner
2.M/s.Prasath & Company Limited,
(Project Works),
Having office at HN, 6-1-125-B,
Ammainayakkallur,
Near R.K.N Company, (Sales Pran)
Kodai Road, Nilakottai Taluk,
Dindigul District. : R2/2nd Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been filed under
Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, against the award, dated
19.03.2013 made in MCOP Nos.170 to 172 of 2010 on the file of
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (1st Additional District Court),
Tirunelveli.
For Appellant : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai
For 1st Respondent : Mr.P.Ramasamy
For 2nd Respondent : No appearance
http://www.judis.nic.in
COMMON JUDGMENT
Challenge made in these appeals is to the award, dated
19.03.2013 made in MCOP Nos.170 to 172 of 2010 on the file of
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I Additional District Court),
Tirunelveli.
2.The brief facts of the case are that on 25.11.2009 at about
19.30 hours, the deceased Rampandian along with his wife
Shanmugavalli and his son Sai Madan were travelling in Maruthi
Sen Car TN-02-AG-4784, after attending a marriage at Tirunelveli.
When they were proceeding at Jillipatti Diversion on Dindigul-
Madurai Main road, the Lorry TN-57-W-9622 dashed against the
Car. Due to it, both the vehicles got fire and the inmates of the
Maruthi Car, except the driver of the Car, who was taken out by the
nearby people by breaking the class of the Car, were burnt to death
inside thereof itself. The claimant, the only legal heir of the
deceased persons filed three separate claim petitions in MCOP
Nos.170 to 172 of 2010 seeking compensation of Rs.60,00,000/-,
75,00,000/- and 10,00,000/- respectively on the ground that the
driver of the offending Lorry was responsible for the accident.
http://www.judis.nic.in
3.The claim was opposed by the Appellant Insurance
Company disputing the manner of accident and their liability to pay
compensation.
4.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.
35,71,300/- in respect of MCOP No.170 of 2010, Rs.54,43,600/- in
respect of MCOP No.171 of 2010 and Rs.6,40,000/- in respect of
MCOP No.172 of 2010 together with interest @ 7.5% p.a.
5.The learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company
mainly argued that the tribunal erred in awarding higher quantum
of compensation to the claimant and failed to award a fair
compensation and the tribunal has not adopted the correct
multiplier and the award of the tribunal under the conventional
heads are also on the higher side, hence, the award of the tribunal
has to be reduced.
6.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1st
respondent submitted that all the three cases are settled before the
http://www.judis.nic.in
Lok Adalat held at Tirunelveli on 28.10.2014 itself in the EP
proceedings filed against MCOP Cases and the claimant in all the
case was permitted to withdraw the settled amount.
7.It is seen from the records that all the cases in respect of
MCOP Nos.170 to 172 of 2010 were settled before the Lok Adalath
held at Tirunelveli, on 28.10.2014 itself and the claimant in all the
cases was permitted to withdraw the settled amount.
8.Recording the above fact, these civil Miscellaneous Appeals
are closed. No costs.
23.02.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
er
http://www.judis.nic.in
T.KRISHNAVALLI,J
er
To,
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/
I Additional District Court, Tirunelveli.
2.The Record Keeper,
VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
CMA(MD)Nos.540 to 542 of 2015
23.02.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
