Madras High Court
The Branch Manager vs M.Ganesan ... Petitioner/ on 26 February, 2021
C.M.A.No.3027 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26.2.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.3027 of 2013
M.P.No.1 of 2013
The Branch Manager,
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Branch office, Commandant road,
queens road Cross,
Bangalore – 560 052. ... 2nd Respondent/Appellant
..Vs..
1. M.Ganesan ... Petitioner/ Respondent -1
2. K.Kaseem ... 1st Respondent/Respondent-2
Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the
Judgement and decree dated 20.12.2012 made in M.C.O.P.No.887 of 2009 on the
file of Principal Subordinate Judge (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) Krishnagiri.
For Appellant : Ms.M.S.Janani
For Respondent No.1 : No appearance
For Respondent No.2 : Notice unserved
*****
JUDGMENT
Brief facts of the claimant's case is as follows:
On 11.07.2005 at about 11.00 a.m., while the petitioner was
travelling as pillion rider in TVS 50 XL bearing registration No.TN 29 U 7233 and
one Subramani was riding the said vehicle abiding road rules from Sipcot towards
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.3027 of 2013
Zuzuvadi, opposite to Ashok Leyland company in SIPCOT to Zuzuvadi service road,
the driver of the Tata Sumo bearing registration No.KA 04 A 3789 drove the same
in a rash and negligent manner came from Zuzuvadi towards Hosur and hit against
the TVS 50 and thereby caused accident, resulting in the petitioner sustained
grievous injuries all over the body. The petitioner was shifted to Government
hospital, Hosur where he had taken treatment as inpatient. A case has been
registered in Cr.No.187 of 2005 under Sec.279, 337 of I.P.C. Thus, the petitioner
has filed the claim petition claiming Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation from the
respondents.
2. On the side of the claimants, P.W.1 & 2 were examined and
Ex.A1 to A-8 were marked. On the side of the respondent, no witness was
examined or any exhibit was marked.
3. Tribunal, based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced
by both sides, has held that the appellant/Insurance Company and the owner of
the vehicle, second respondent herein are jointly and severally liable to pay a
sum of Rs.10,60,876/- as compensation to the claimant along with interest at the
rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. The total
compensation awarded by the tribunal under various heads are as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.3027 of 2013
Heads Compensation awarded
by the tribunal in Rs.
Loss of future income 6,42,600/-
Pain & Suffering 70,000/-
Nutrition 10,000/-
Medical bills 67,676/-
Transport 10,000/-
Attendant charges 10,000/-
Loss of maternal prospects 50,000/-
Future treatment 2,00,000/-
Total 10,60,876/-
4. Challenging the said award, Insurance Company has filed the
present appeal both against the liability as well as the quantum of compensation
awarded by the tribunal.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance
Company and perused the materials available on record.
6. The respondent/claimant filed a claim petition claiming
Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation for permanent disability suffered by him in the
accident as stated supra. The tribunal based on the oral and documentary
evidence, came to the conclusion that due to the rash and negligent driving on the
part of the offending vehicle, the accident occurred and the claimant suffered 70%
disability. According to the counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.3027 of 2013
Company, Rs.2,00,000/- awarded by the tribunal towards future treatment is
excessive without any basis. The tribunal wrongly assessed the disability and the
amount fixed towards each percentage is also exorbitant and there is no record to
show the monthly income as fixed by the tribunal. On a perusal of the award
would show that the tribunal has rightly assessed the disability at 70% based on the
evidence of P.W.2 and Ex.A7 document marked by the claimant. Under the other
heads also, the award passed by the tribunal is just and reasonable compensation
to the claimant. Considering at any angle, there is no ground to interfere with the
award passed by the tribunal. Therefore, the award passed by the tribunal is
confirmed.
7. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
26.02.2021
Speaking/Non Speaking order
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
vaan
To
1. The Principal Subordinate Judge (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal)
Krishnagiri
2. The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch office,
Commandant road, queens road Cross, Bangalore – 560 052.
3. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, Madras High Court, Chennai-104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.3027 of 2013
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
vaan
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.3027 of 2013
M.P.No.1 of 2013
26.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
