Madras High Court
United India Insurance Company ... vs Rajeswari ... 1St on 8 November, 2021
C.M.A.No.1819 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 08.11.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.KANNAMMAL
C.M.A.No.1819 of 2017
and
C.M.P.No.9738 of 2017
[video conferencing]
United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
Arcot Road, Chennai – 93 ... Appellant / 2nd respondent
Vs.
1.Rajeswari ... 1st respondent / petitioner
2.M.Uma Maheswari ... 2nd respondent / 1st respondent
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree of II Additional
District Judge, Poonamallee in M.C.O.P.No.326 of 2015 dated 22.12.2016.
For Appellant : Mrs.Vijaya Kamala
For R1 : Mr.C.Prabakaran
For R2 : No appearance
*****
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1819 of 2017
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred against the award
passed in M.C.O.P.No.326 of 2015 dated 22.12.2016 on the file of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal cum II Additional District Judge, Poonamallee.
2.The short facts which are leading to the filing of the present Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal are as follows:
The 1st respondent is the claimant and the 2nd respondent herein is the
owner of the vehicle and the appellant herein is the 2nd respondent before the
Tribunal. On 02.08.2015 at about 11.00 p.m., the deceased was driving a
motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN 20 AP 2981 from Chennai towards
Vandavasi at Uthiramerur Junction while he was going near Ozhaiyur Road,
the driver of the Tata City Rider Van bearing Registration No.TN 25 AZ
9054, belonging to the 1st respondent drove the vehicle in a rash and
negligent manner and hit behind the two wheeler and caused the accident. In
the accident, the deceased Sukumar @ Sukumaran sustained multiple
grievous injuries and he succumbed to the injuries at Rajiv Gandhi
Government General Hospital on 03.08.2015.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1819 of 2017
3.Before the Tribunal, examined two witnesses as P.W.1 and P.W.2
and Ex.P1 to Ex.P12 were marked. On the side of the respondents witness
R.W.1 was examined and Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 were marked.
4.The appellant herein is the insurer of the vehicle namely Tata City
Rider Van owned by the 2nd respondent herein. The claimant / widowed
mother of the deceased has filed a claim petition claiming a sum of
Rs.10,03,000/- [Rupees Ten Lakhs Three Thousand only] as compensation in
M.C.O.P.No.326 of 2015 dated 22.12.2016 on the file of the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal cum II Additional District Judge, Poonamallee.
5.The Tribunal after considering the evidence on record awarded a
total compensation of Rs.10,44,500/- payable to the claimant / widowed
mother of the deceased, directing the appellant to pay the awarded amount
with interest therein at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the
petition till the date of realization with costs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1819 of 2017
6.This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant /
Insurance Company, challenging the Judgment and Decree passed in
M.C.O.P.No.326 of 2015, dated 22.12.2016 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal cum II Additional District Judge, Poonamallee.
7.According to the appellant, the Insurance Company /2nd respondent
the insurer of the vehicle via Tata City Rider Van bearing Registration No.
TN 25 AZ 9054. The learned counsel contended that even though evidence
was adduced through R.W.1 that at the time of accident the van carried 15
passengers as against the capacity of 13 passengers which resulted in the
alleged accident, the Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence that the 2 nd
respondent Tata City Rider Van was over loaded with the passengers.
8.The learned counsel would further submit that when it is proved
through the evidence of R.W.1 and Exs.R1 to R3 that the insured violated the
terms and conditions of the policy, the Tribunal ought to have passed an order
for pay and recovery.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1819 of 2017
9.The Trial Court considering the rash and negligent act of the driver
of the Tata City Rider Van at the time of accident held that the accident has
happened due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the 1st respondent
vehicle.
10.The Trial Court has also at Para No.9 of the Judgment clearly
discussed about the evidence of R.W.1 and Exs.R1 to R3 has rightly held that
because of the excess of two passengers there would not have been any
possibility for the accident and the accident had happened only due to the
rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tata City Rider Van and this
Court does not find any wrong in the finding of the Trial Court and no
interference is called for.
11.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
08.11.2021
(1/2)
ssi
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
Speaking/Non-speaking Order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1819 of 2017
S.KANNAMMAL, J.
ssi
To
1.The II Additional District Judge, Poonamallee.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section, High Court, Madras.
C.M.A.No.1819 of 2017
and
C.M.P.No.9738 of 2017
08.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
