Madras High Court
National Insurance Company Ltd vs M.Megavarnam : 1St on 25 February, 2021
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 25.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.KRISHNAVALLI
C.M.A(MD)No.1575 of 2013
and
MP(MD)No.2 of 2013
National Insurance Company Ltd.,
Rep. By its Divisional Manager,
33, Bharathidasan Salai,
Tiruchirapalli-1. : Appellant/2nd Respondent
Vs.
1.M.Megavarnam : 1st Respondent/Petitioner
2.S.Sakthivel : 2nd Respondent/R1
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under
Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the award, dated
09.02.2012 made in MCOP No.131 of 2007 on the file of Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Kulithalai.
For Appellant : Mr.N.Murugesan
For 1st Respondent : Mr.N.Sudhagar Nagaraj
For 2nd Respondent : Ex-parte
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
JUDGMENT
Challenge made in this appeal is to the award, dated
09.02.2012 made in MCOP No.131 of 2007 on the file of Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Kulithalai.
2.The brief facts of the case are that on 19.03.2004 at about
10.30 pm, when the claimant was travelling in the motor cycle TVS
Suzuki TAK-2441 as a pillion rider, while driving by his friend
Mr.Raja @ Rajadurai, near Trichy Cauvery (Old) Bridge, the
Ambassador Car TNE-1443 came from the opposite direction in a
rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle. In
the accident, the claimant had sustained fracture of the right leg
and immediately, he was taken to KMC Hospital, Trichy and
thereafter, he took treatment in Bone and Joint Clinic at Woraiyur,
Trichy. A claim petition was filed by the claimant seeking
compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- on the ground that the offending
vehicle caused the accident.
3.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
4.The Tribunal, upon consideration of oral and documentary
evidence, came to the conclusion that the driver of the Car was
responsible for the accident and awarded compensation of Rs.
3,87,750/- together with interest @ 7.5 % p.a. Aggrieved by the
award of the tribunal, the appellant Insurance Company is before
this court.
5.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and
perused the materials available on record.
6.It is mainly contended by the learned counsel for the
appellant that the Ambassador Car has no fitness certificate at the
time of the accident and the multiplier adopted by the tribunal is
not correct and the quantum of compensation awarded by the
tribunal is on the higher side and that the tribunal ought to have
held for pay and recovery, since the offending vehicle has no fitness
certificate at the time of accident, 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
7.It is seen from the records that at the time of accident, the
offending vehicle was insured with the appellant Insurance
Company. It is the main contention of the appellant Insurance
Company that at the time of accident, the offending vehicle has no
fitness certificate. In this case, an official of the Appellant
Insurance Company was examined as RW1. RW1 during his cross
examination stated that at the time of accident, the offending
vehicle was insured with their Company and the claimant is the 3rd
party and there was no proof to the effect that the offending vehicle
has no fitness certificate. As there was no reliable document
produced on the side of the Insurance Company, the tribunal has
rightly held that since the Insurance Company has not proved that
at the time of accident, the offending vehicle has no fitness
certificate, the Appellant Insurance Company is liable to pay the
compensation to the claimant.
8.PW1 is the injured as well as the eye witness to the
accident. A criminal case was registered against the driver of the
offending vehicle. Ex.P1 FIR stands registered based on the
complaint given by PW1. Ex.P10 charge sheet would show that
after investigation, the police filed a final report against the Driver
http://www.judis.nic.in
of the Car. PW1 has given evidence stating that due to the accident,
he sustained 60% disability due to fracture on the left side hip
bone and head injury and he could not walk or stand for a prolong
time and he was not able to do his regular work. To prove the
above fact, on the side of the claimants, Ex.P13 Disability
Certificate and Ex.P14 X-ray were marked.
9.It is not in dispute that at the time of accident, the age of
the claimant was 33. The tribunal, based on his age and taking his
monthly income as Rs.4,000/- and by applying the multiplier 16,
has awarded Rs.2,30,400/- (Rs.4,000/- x 12 x 16 x 30/100) towards
loss of earning capacity and future loss of income. Further, the
Tribunal awarded Rs.95,350/- towards medical expenses, based on
Exs.P4 and P5; Rs.12,000/- towards actual loss of income; Rs.
20,000/- towards transportation and extra nourishment and Rs.
30,000/- towards pain and sufferings and continuing permanent
disability. In total, the tribunal has awarded Rs.3,87,750/- together
with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. In the considered view of this
court, the award is fair and reasonable and therefore, it is
confirmed.
http://www.judis.nic.in
10.In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed,
confirming the award of the tribunal. No costs. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
.
25.02.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
er
To
1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/
The Subordinate Judge, Kulithalai,
Karur District.
2.The Record Keeper,
V.R Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in
T.KRISHNAVALLI.J.,
er
C.M.A(MD)No.1575 of 2013
25.02.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
