Madras High Court
M.Eswaran vs N. Pannerselvam on 24 September, 2021
C.M.A.Nos.92 and 94 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24.09.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
C.M.A.Nos.92 and 94 of 2014
M.Eswaran .... Appellant in CMA No.92 of 2014
Rukmani ….Appellant in CMA No.94 of 2014
Versus
1. N. Pannerselvam
2. M/s. United India Insurance Company
Bank Road,
Ootacamand
Nilgiris. .... Respondents in both appeals.
Prayer in CMA No.92 of 2014 : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under
Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and
decree dated 29.09.2011 and made in MCOP No.113 of 2006 on the file
of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Subordinate Judge), at Mettur and
praying to set aside the same by enhancing the compensation as prayed
for.
Prayer in CMA No.94 of 2014 : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under
Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and
decree dated 29.09.2011 and made in MCOP No.115 of 2006 on the file
of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Subordinate Judge), at Mettur and
praying to set aside the same by enhancing the compensation as prayed
for.
For Appellant : Mr.P. Jagadeesan
For Respondents : Ms. I.Malar for R2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.92 and 94 of 2014
R1 – Served – No appearance
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Heard video conference)
Since both these appeals arise out of the same accident, these
appeals are disposed of by a common judgment.
2. C.M.A. Nos.92 and 94 of 2014 have been filed by the
respective claimants challenging the impugned awards dated 29.09.2011
in respective MCOP Nos.113 and 115 of 2006 passed by the learned
Sub Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mettur on the following
grounds :
a) The Tribunal has erroneously exonerated the 2nd
respondent / Insurance Company under the impugned awards.
b) the quantum of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal in respective MCOPs are not a just compensation.
3. Heard Mr.P. Jagadeesan, learned counsel for the respective
appellant / claimant and Ms.I.Malar, learned counsel for the 2nd
respondent / Insurance Company in both these appeals. The 1st
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.92 and 94 of 2014
respondent was set ex-parte before the Tribunal, hence notice to R1 is
dispensed with.
4. This Court has perused and examined the impugned award as
well as the materials and evidence available on record before the
Tribunal.
5. Insofar as the first contention raised by the respective appellants
is concerned, this Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal has
rightly exonerated the liability of the Insurance Company as admittedly
as seen from the evidence available on record, the respective appellants /
claimants were travelling as an unauthorised passenger in the insured
goods vehicle. It is settled law that as gratuitous passengers, no claim
can be made against the Insurance Company. Therefore, the first
contention as regards the exoneration of the liability of the Insurance
Company raised by the respective appellants is rejected by this Court.
6. Insofar as the second contention raised by the respective
appellants as regards the quantum of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal in respective MCOPs are concerned, the same also does not
deserve any merit for the following reasons :-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.92 and 94 of 2014
i) Insofar as the claimant, who is the appellant in CMA
No.92 of 2014, she has not sustained any disability as seen
from the evidence available on record. The Tribunal has
awarded a compensation of Rs.13,000/- for an accident that
happened on 26.12.2000. Since the appellant / claimant in
CMA No.92 of 2014 has not sustained any disability, this
Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal has rightly
assessed the compensation payable to the appellant / claimant
at Rs.13,000/- and the same is confirmed.
ii) Insofar as the compensation awarded by the Tribunal
to the appellant / claimant in CMA No.94 of 2014 is
concerned, even though the Doctor (PW5), who assessed the
disability of the appellant / claimant at 35%, the Tribunal has
reduced the same to 30% after giving due consideration to the
nature of injuries sustained by the appellant / claimant. This
Court is of the considered view that the assessment of
compensation under the head “permanent disability” made
by the Tribunal at Rs.30,000/- is a correct assessment. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.92 and 94 of 2014
accident happened in the year 2000 after giving due
consideration to the year of the accident, this Court is of the
considered view that the overall compensation awarded by the
Tribunal to the appellant / claimant at Rs.62,500/- cannot be
considered to be unjust and the same is confirmed.
7. For the foregoing reasons this Court does not find any infirmity
in the findings of the Tribunal. Therefore, there is no merit in these
appeals and accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed.
No costs.
8. The Tribunal has awarded the compensation only against the 1st
respondent and the 1st respondent has also not preferred any appeal
aggrieved by the finding of the Tribunal. The award passed against the
first respondent is confirmed and the first respondent is directed to
deposit the entire award amount awarded by the Tribunal together with
interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of
realization, less the amount, if any, already deposited to the credit of
respective MCOP Nos.113 and 115 of 2006 on the file of Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, (Subordinate Judge), at Mettur respectively,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.92 and 94 of 2014
within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
Judgment. On such deposit being made, the Tribunal is directed to
transfer the award amount directly to the bank account of the appellant
in CMA No.92 and 94 of 2014 through RTGS, within a period of two
weeks thereafter.
24.09.2021
(2/2)
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
vsi2
To
1. The Subordinate Judge,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Mettur.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R. Section, High Court of Madras,
Chennai – 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.92 and 94 of 2014
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
vsi2
C.M.A.Nos.92 and 94 of 2014
24.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
