Madras High Court
The Branch Manager vs Infant Preetha on 22 November, 2021
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 22.11.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
C.M.A.(MD).No.304 of 2020
and
C.M.P.(MD)Nos. 7353 of 2020
The Branch Manager,
The Oriental Insurance Limited,
CBO-II, Ernakulam,
Jewel Arcade, Layam Road,
Ernakulam, Cochin,
Kerala – 692 011. ...Appellant/2nd Respondent
Vs.
1.Infant Preetha
2.Minor Jashmali
[Minor 2nd Respondent represented by his mother
and Next guardian friend of Infant Preetha]
3.Melkuer
4.Emalir ...R-1 to R-4/R-1 to R-4
5.A.Murugadoss ...5th Respondent/1st Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the Judgment and decree in M.C.O.P.No.769
of 2016, dated 08.01.2020, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
cum Special Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
For Appellant :Mr.A.Elango
For R-1 to R-4 :Mr.T.Selva Kumaran
ORDER
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed to set aside the
Judgment and decree, dated 08.01.2020 in M.C.O.P.No.769 of 2016 passed
by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Special Subordinate
Judge, Tirunelveli.
2.It is a case of fatal accident, which took place on 07.05.2016 at about
12.30 p.m., when the deceased Wilson was riding his motor cycle bearing
Regn. No.TN-74-AE-5452 in Irulappapuram – Vallankumaranvilai Main
road, towards north to south ner Beach Road, Anna Illam, an auto bearing
Regn. No.TN-74-AE-7963 came in the opposite direction driven by its driver
in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the deceased motor cycle and
the deceased sustained grievous injuries. Due to the accident, the said Wilson
died.
3.The claimants have filed a petition in M.C.O.P. No.769 of 2016 on
the file of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Special
Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli, seeking compensation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4.Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants three witnesses were
examined as P.Ws.1 to 3 and marked ten documents as Exs.P.1 to P.10 and
R.W.1 & R.W.2 were examined and Ex.R.1 to R.4 were marked.
5.The Tribunal, after considering the pleadings, oral and documentary
evidences and the arguments of the counsel for the claimants and the
insurance company and also on appreciating the evidences on record, held
that the accident occurred only, due to the rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the auto and directed the appellant/insurance company to pay a sum
of Rs.18,84,400/-as compensation.
6.Heard Mr.A.Elango, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and
Mr.T.Selva Kumaran, learned counsel appearing for the claimants. Perused
the material documents available on record.
7.The appellant/insurance company has filed this Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal to set aside the award dated 08.01.2020 in M.C.O.P.No.769 of 2016
on the ground that the insured vehicle was not involved in the alleged
accident and also monthly income fixed by the tribunal is very high.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8.The First Information Report/Ex.P.2 was filed against the driver of
the insured vehicle (Auto). After investigation, charge sheet was also filed.
Eye witness was examined as P.W.3. He clearly deposed in his cross
examination as follows:-
“Ml;NlhTk;; igf;Fk; NeUf;F Neh;
NkhjpaJ vd;why; rhpjhd;. Ml;Nlh jhd;
Vwp te;J NkhjpaJ. tpgj;jpy; ,uz;L
thfdj;jpw;Fk; Kd;gf;fj;jpy; Nrjq;fs;
Vw;gl;ld. tpgj;J elf;Fk;NghJ jiyftrk;
mzpe;jpUe;jhh; vd;why; mzpe;jpUe;jhh;.
ncwy;Nkl; mq;F fple;jJ.”
9.The First Information Report and charge sheet and the evidence of
the eye witness clearly reveals that the negligence is part of the driver of the
Auto.
10.The tribunal has fixed monthly income is as Rs.9,000/-. The
deceased was a fisherman and his driving licence was marked as Ex.P.4. At
the time of accident, the age of the deceased 31 years. So, the tribunal has
rightly fixed the monthly income. For future prospectus is also added as
Pranay Sethi case. So, the tribunal has rightly fixed negligence also and the
monthly income.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/insurance company
contended that non production of CCTV footage and motor vehicle report of
the auto is fatal to the claim. But charge sheet clearly proves the negligence
of the auto driver.
12.In view of the foregoing reasons, this Court has no valid reason to
interfere with the findings of the tribunal.
13. In view of the foregoing reasons, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
stands dismissed by confirming the Judgment and decree, dated 08.01.2020
in M.C.O.P.No.769 of 2016 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal cum Special Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli. The
appellant/ insurance company is directed to deposit the entire award amount
within a period of four weeks, from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
If any excess amount deposited, the appellant/insurance company is
permitted to withdraw the excess award amount. After depositing the award
amount, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the award amount before the
tribunal, on filing appropriate application. The amount of the minor claimant
is to be deposited in any one of the Nationalized Bank till she attains
majority. The 1st claimant is entitled to receive the accrued interest once in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
three months from the bank directly. No Costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
Index :Yes/No 22.11.2021
Internet:Yes/No
ksa
Note:In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web
copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the
copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the Advocate/litigant concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/
Special Subordinate Judge,
Tirunelveli.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.ANANTHI, J.
ksa
Order made in
C.M.A.(MD).No.304 of 2020
22.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
