Madras High Court
United India Insurance Company ... vs Murugan on 30 November, 2021
C.M.A.No.706 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30.11.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
C.M.A.No.706 of 2014
and M.P.No.1 of 2014
United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
Divisional Office,
No.73-C, MTH Road, Ambattur,
Chennai 53. .. Appellant
Vs.
1.Murugan
2.Solaimmal
3.Pachaiappan .. Respondents
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated 18.01.2013 in
M.C.O.P.No.830 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Sub Court, Ponneri.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Ravichandran
For Respondents : No appearance for R2
R1 & R3 - died
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.706 of 2014
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the
appellant/Insurance Company against the award dated 18.01.2013 in
M.C.O.P.No.830 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Sub Court, Ponneri.
2.The appellant/Insurance Company is the 3rd respondent in
M.C.O.P.No.830 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Sub Court, Ponneri. The 1st respondent filed the said claim petition against the
respondents 2 & 3 and the appellant/Insurance Company, claiming a sum of
Rs.3,00,0000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the
accident that took place on 20.03.2007.
3.According to the 1st respondent, on 20.03.2007 at about 07.00 p.m.,
while he was riding his motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN 05 F 0568
from Thervazhi to Gummidipoondi, the driver of the auto bearing Registration
No.TN 04 H 4143 belonging to the respondents 2 and 3, insured with the
appellant, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, dashed on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.706 of 2014
motorcycle driven by the 1st respondent and caused the accident. In the
accident, the 1st respondent sustained injuries and took treatment in the
Government Hospital, Chennai. Therefore, he claimed compensation against
the respondents 2 and 3 as owners of the auto and appellant as insurer of the
auto.
4.The owners of the auto, respondents 2 and 3 remained exparte before
the Tribunal.
5.The appellant/Insurance Company filed counter statement, denying
the accident and stated that in the Accident Registrar, it is not mentioned that
1st respondent suffered injuries in the road traffic accident. The Police was not
informed about the accident. The complaint was given only after 7 days of
accident. There is a difference in mentioning of the vehicle number in the First
Information Report, Charge Sheet and Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report. In
the First Information Report, the vehicle number is mentioned as TN 20 X
4143 and in the Charge Sheet and Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report, it is
mentioned as TN 04 H 4143. At the time of accident, the vehicle belonging to
the 2nd respondent was not insured with the appellant and the appellant is not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.706 of 2014
liable to pay compensation. In any event, the injuries sustained by the 1st
respondent are only simple injuries and not grievious injuries. The
compensation claimed by the 1st respondent is highly excessive and prayed for
dismissal of the claim petition.
6.Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent examined himself as P.W.1,
Dr.J.R.R.Thiagarajan was examined as P.W.2 and marked 10 documents as
Exs.P1 to P10. The appellant/Insurance Company did not let in any oral and
documentary evidence.
7.The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary
evidence of the 1st respondent and the fact that there is contra evidence to
disprove the evidence of the 1st respondent, held that the accident occurred
only due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the auto belonging to
the 2nd respondent, insured with the appellant, directed the
appellant/Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.2,42,000/- as compensation
to the 1st respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.706 of 2014
8.Against the said award dated 18.01.2013 in M.C.O.P.No.830 of
2009, the appellant/Insurance Company has come out with the Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal.
9.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company
submitted that the Tribunal failed to see that it is for the 1 st respondent to
prove the identity of the vehicle which had dashed against him, only thereafter
burden of disproving the same would be shifted to the appellant. The 1st
respondent has not let in any evidence to explain the discrepancy in the
identity of the vehicle. The disability of the 1st respondent fixed by the
Tribunal as 75% is excessive. The Tribunal considering the nature of injuries
of the 1st respondent, ought to have fixed the disability only at 25% and
granted compensation. The total compensation granted by the Tribunal is
excessive and prayed for setting aside the award of the Tribunal.
10.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance
Company and perused the entire materials on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.706 of 2014
11.It is the case of the 1st respondent that while he was riding his
motorcycle from Thervazhi to Gummidipoondi, at about 07.00 p.m., the driver
of the auto belonging to the respondents 2 and 3, drove the same in a rash and
negligent manner, dashed on the motorcycle in which the 1st respondent was
riding and caused the accident. To substantiate his case, the 1 st respondent
examined himself as P.W.1 and marked the First Information Report as
Ex.P1, which was registered against the driver of the auto. On the otherhand,
it is the case of the appellant, that auto belonging to the respondents 2 and 3,
insured with the appellant was not involved in the accident. In the Accident
Register, the vehicle number is not mentioned. There is a difference in
Registration Number of the vehicle in First Information Report and Charge
Sheet. To prove their case, the appellant has not let in any oral and
documentary evidence. The evidence of the 1st respondent as P.W.1 and
contents of the First Information Report was not contraverted by the
appellant by examining any witness and producing Accident Register and
Charge Sheet.
12.Further, the accident has occurred on 20.03.2007 and in the
accident, the 1st respondent sustained injuries as detailed in the claim petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.706 of 2014
The 1st respondent took treatment as in-patient in Government General
Hospital, Chennai from 20.03.2007 to 10.04.2007 and again from 24.04.2007
to 12.06.2007 and underwent surgeries. Again 1st respondent was admitted in
the same hospital from 14.08.2007 to 17.09.2007. The appellant has stated
that the First Information Report was registered after the delay of 7 days from
the date of accident. It is well settled that the delay in filing the First
Information Report is not fatal to the claim of compensation, if the claimant is
able to prove that the accident has occurred as mentioned in the First
Information Report. The Tribunal considering the discharge summary issued
by the Government General Hospital, Chennai, nature of injuries, period of
treatment taken by the 1st respondent, evidence of P.W.2/Doctor and
Ex.P10/Disability Certificate, fixed the disability of the 1st respondent as 75%
and granted compensation at Rs.2,000/- per percentage. Considering the
materials on record, the Tribunal has granted just compensation. There is no
error or irregularity in the said order of the learned Judge warranting
interference by this Court.
13.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the
amount awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.2,42,000/- together with interest at the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.706 of 2014
rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit is
confirmed. The appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award
amount along with interest and costs, less the amount already deposited, if
any, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment, to the credit of M.C.O.P. No.830 of 2009. On such deposit, the 1st
respondent is permitted to withdraw the entire award amount along with
interest and costs, after adjusting the amount, if any, already withdrawn, by
filing necessary applications before the Tribunal. No costs. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
30.11.2021
vkr
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
To
1.The Subordinate Judge,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Ponneri.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section, High Court,
Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.706 of 2014
V.M.VELUMANI, J.
vkr
C.M.A.No.706 of 2014
and M.P.No.1 of 2014
30.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
