Madras High Court
Ragupathy vs P.Saravanan on 25 February, 2021
C.M.A.No.689 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR
C.M.A.No.689 of 2014
and M.P.No.1 of 2014
Ragupathy ..Appellant
Versus
1.P.Saravanan
2.Palani
3.United India Insurance Company,
Branch Office at 19/2,
Sooramangalam Main Road,
Salem – 5.
4.R.Murugavel
5.Cholamandalam M.S.General Insurance Company Limited,
Motor Insurance Cover Note No.770035,
Erode – 638 009.
6.Amirthalingam ..Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, to set aside the judgment and decree made in M.C.O.P.No.168 of
2006 dated 22.03.2012 on the file of II Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem.
For Appellant : Mr.J.Sudhakaran
For Respondents : Mr.D.Sivakumar [for R1]
Mr.P.Jagadeesan [for R6]
Notice served [for RR3,2 &5]
Notice unserved [for R4]
*****
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/5
C.M.A.No.689 of 2014
JUDGMENT
The Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated
22.03.2012 made in M.C.O.P.No.168 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Vehicle
Accidents Claims Tribunal, II Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem.
2. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant, who
was impleaded as party in the claim petition, is the owner of the vehicle bearing
Registration No. TN 27 8460. The claimant, who is the 1st respondent herein
had filed the claim petition before the Tribunal for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/-
towards compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident which
occurred on 18.05.2005.
3. The Tribunal, on considering the oral and documentary evidence, had
awarded a compensation of Rs.4,66,054/- to the claimant for the disability
sustained by him in the accident.
4. According to the appellant, he is the owner of the vehicle bearing
Registration.No.TN-27-8460, which was purchased by him from the 6 th
respondent. But the Tribunal without considering the case of the appellant, on
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.689 of 2014
considering other materials, had awarded the compensation amount to the 1st
respondent/claimant holding that due to the rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the appellant, the said accident happened and the claimant sustained
70% disability.
5. The appellant has raised several grounds in the appeal that the
quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and that there
are no sufficient materials to award such huge compensation amount to the 1st
respondent/claimant.
6. Considered the rival submissions and perused the materials on record.
7. On appraisal of the oral and documentary evidence placed by the 1st
respondents/claimant, the Tribunal had rightly fixed the disability of the
claimant at 70% . Taking note of the said disability of 70%, a sum of Rs.1000/-
was awarded per percentage and therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity on
the part of the Tribunal in awarding reasonable compensation to the claimant.
Under the other heads, the Tribunal has also granted reasonable compensation
amounts to the claimant and this Court finds no ground to interfere with the
award passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.689 of 2014
dismissed. No order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition
is closed.
25.02.2021
bri
Index:Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
To
1.The Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal,
II Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.689 of 2014
D. KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
bri
C.M.A.No.689 of 2014
and M.P.No.1 of 2014
25.02.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
