Madras High Court
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs R.Sethumadavan on 5 January, 2021
C.M.A.No.2489 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.01.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2489 of 2010
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
46, Moore Street, Chennai. ... Appellants
..Vs..
1.R.Sethumadavan,
S/o Rangarajulu,
No.28, 12th Cross Street,
New Colony, Chromepet,
Chennai-600044.
2.R.Babu,
No.75, Nagappan Nagar, Chromepet,
Chennai-600044. ... Respondents
Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
against the judgment and decree dated 30.07.2009 in M.C.O.P.No.4371 of
2000, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,(Fast Track Court-I),
Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr. G.Udayasankar
For Respondent No.1 : No Appearance
R2 Exparte
*****
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2489 of 2010
JUDGMENT
Challenging the award passed by the Tribunal in
M.C.O.P.No.4371 of 2000, dated 30.7.2008, the Insurance Company has
preferred the present appeal.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits
that the second respondent/driver was set exparte and hence, the appeal
against the second respondent is given up. Such view of the matter, the
appeal is dismissed against the second respondent/driver.
3. The case of the claimant/first respondent is as follows:
On 23.11.1999 at about 2.40 p.m., when the claimant was
riding a motorcycle bearing registration No.TN-X 3033 at G.S.T. Road,
Chrompet, a lorry bearing registration No.T.A.L.6594 driven by its driver
coming behind the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and hit the
aforesaid motorcycle causing accident and thereby the claimant sustained
fracture in right hand and right thigh and also sustained injuries at left
shoulder. The petitioner had taken treatment in a private hospital for the
injuries sustained by him. The claimant/first respondent filed a claim
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2489 of 2010
petition before the Tribunal for a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the
fractures and injuries sustained by him.
4. The Tribunal, based on the oral and documentary evidence
Exs.P1 to P.12 and Ex.R1 and R2, has awarded a sum of Rs.1,62,904/- as
total compensation payable by the appellant Insurance Company to the
claimants under the following heads:
Heads Amount in Rs.
Disability 40,000.00
Medical Treatment 62,904.00
Pain and sufferings 40,000.00
Transportation 10,000.00
Nourishment 10,000.00
Total 1,62,904.00
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and
perused the materials available on record.
6. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,62,904/- as total
compensation to the first respondent for the injuries sustained by him in a
road accident on 23.11.1999. It is pertinent to note that the appellant was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2489 of 2010
studying B.E. third year at the time of accident and he claimed a sum of
Rs.5,00,000/- as total compensation.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance
company challenged the findings of the Tribunal that the negligence on the
part of the appellant company to make investigation at the occurrence
place to come to the conclusion as to how the accident occurred. The
appellant is not challenging the quantum of the award passed by the
Tribunal. Therefore, the award in so far as the quantum is confirmed. The
appellant company specifically denied the averment that the accident
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver and contended
that the claimant lost control over the motorcycle and dashed against the
tanker lorry and therefore, fixing liability on the appellant company by the
Tribunal is unsustainable in law.
8. On a perusal of the award, both claimant and the appellant
Insurance company contested the case by producing oral and documentary
evidence before the Tribunal. In para 7 of the award, the Tribunal discussed
about the negligence on the part of the Insurance company and considered
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2489 of 2010
the evidence adduced by the claimant as well as Insurance company and
came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to lapse on the part
of the driver of the insured vehicle. Contra to the said findings, there is no
material has been placed before this Court to prove that there is no
negligence on the part of the lorry driver of the insured vehicle. Therefore,
there is no warrant to interfere with the award passed by the tribunal.
9. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No
costs.
05.01.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking/Non Speaking order
vaan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2489 of 2010
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.,
vaan
CMA.No.2489 of 2010
05.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
