Madras High Court
The United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Sarbunnisha on 7 January, 2021
1
In the High Court of Judicature at Madras
Dated: 07.01.2021
Coram
The Honourable Mr. Justice D.KRISHNA KUMAR
C.M.A. Nos.222 & 223 of 2012
and M.P.Nos.1 & 1 of 2012
The United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
50-A, Pallivasal Street,
Perambalar. ... Appellant in both Appeals
..Vs..
1.Sarbunnisha ... Respondent in CMA.245 of 2004
2.Sankar ... Respondent in CMA.274 of 2004
3.R.Kandasamy ... Respondents in both Appeals
3.M.Mohamed Farook ... Respondents in both Appeals
Common Prayer: These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed under
Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and
decree passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, (MACT),
Perambalur in M.C.O.P.Nos.245 & 274 of 2004 respectively dated
04.08.2011.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Arun Kumar
For Respondent-1 : Mr.T.Gobinath
For Respondent-2 & 3 : No Appearance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
COMMON JUDGMENT
These appeals have been filed by the Insurance Company
challenging the awards dated 04.08.2011 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal/ learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Perambalur in M.C.O.P.Nos.245 & 274 of 2004 respectively on the
ground of liability, where the claim petitions filed by the first and
second respondent herein/claimants were allowed in part and a sum
of Rs.1,11,000/- and Rs.10,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5%
per annum was awarded to the claimants.
2. Heard Mr.S.Arun Kumar, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the Insurance Company and Mr.T.Gobinath, learned
counsel for the claimants/respondents 1 & 2 herein.
3. The respondents/claimants have filed claim petitions in
MCOP.Nos.245 & 274 of 2004 before the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, (MACT), Perambalur, claiming a compensation of Rs.3
lakhs and Rs.40,000/- respectively for the injuries sustained by
them in the accident that took place on 02.12.2003. Before the
Tribunal, the Insurance Company has specifically denied the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
averments made by the claimants as false and also submitted that
there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the first
respondent vehicle which was insured with the appellant herein and
contended that the first respondent's vehicle was not involved in the
said accident.
4. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted
that the Insurance company has filed a criminal complaint for falsely
implicating their insured vehicle for the purpose of claim for
reinvestigation. The Tribunal had rejected the contentions of the
Insurance company and awarded a sum of Rs.1,11,000/-to the
claimant in MCOP.No.245 of 2004 and insofar as the MCOP 274 of
2004 is concerned, a sum of Rs.10,000/- has been awarded to the
claimant as compensation. Assailing the said awards, the Insurance
company has preferred the above said appeals before this Court.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
Insurance company has raised the ground that they are not liable to
pay the compensation as there was no involvement of their insured
vehicle in the said accident that took place on 02.12.2003. Hence,
the Insurance company had preferred a criminal complaint before
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
the CBCID, Perambalur and also sought for reinvestigation by the
CBCID for falsely implicated their insured vehicle. According to the
learned counsel for the appellant, the ground of quantum was not
seriously disputed by them.
6. The entire fact of the case will be decided only on the
genuineness of the claim made by the claimants. The accident was
happened on 02.12.2003 and the said complaint was also filed
before the CBCID during that period of time. Though more than 17
years have been lapsed, no progress has been shown in
investigating the complaint and filing of the final report. This Court
has given sufficient opportunity for the Insurance Company for
producing the status of the criminal cases pending for
reinvestigation before the CBCID but no such report has been filed
before this Court as on date. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to
accept the said contention of liability of the Insurance company in
respect of the non involvement of their insured vehicle, to interfere
with the award passed by the Tribunal. Consequently, there is no
merits in the appeals as contended by the appellant Insurance
company. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the
aforesaid appeals are liable to be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this
Court is not inclined to interfere with the award passed by the
Tribunal and hence the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed. It
is brought to the notice of this Court that the entire award amount
has been deposited by the Insurance Company. The respondents/
claimants are entitled to withdraw the entire/balance amount, if not
already withdrawn, on filing of appropriate petition before the court
concerned. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is
closed. There shall be no orders as to costs.
07.01.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
DP
To
1.The Chief Judicial Magistrate Court,
(The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal)
Perambalur.
2.The Record Keeper,
V.R. Section, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
D.KRISHNA KUMAR.J,
DP
C.M.A. Nos.222 & 223 of 2012
and
M.P.Nos.1 & 1 of 2012
07.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
