Madras High Court
The Branch Manager vs Veerapandiyan ...1St on 19 January, 2022
C.M.A.(MD).No.1229 of 2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATE : 19.01.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
C.M.A.(MD).No.1229 of 2014
and
M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2014
The Branch Manager,
New India Assurance Company Limited,
Tuticorin. ...Appellant/3rd Respondent
Vs.
1.Veerapandiyan ...1st Respondent/Petitioner
2.Periyasamy
3.Rosalina
4.Muthupandy
5.The Regional Manager,
ICICI Lombord General Insurance Company Limited,
Zenith Housing,
Kesavrao Kade Mark Part,
Mahalakshmi, Mumbai,
Maharashtra District. ...Respondent Nos.2, 3, 4 & 5 /
Respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 & 5
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act 1988, to set aside the order of the claims Tribunal in MCOP.No.
105 of 2010, dated 29.11.2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Principal Subordinate Court, Tenkasi and allow the appeal costs.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.1229 of 2014
For Appellant :Mr.J.S.Murali
For R1 :Mr.N.Tamilmani
For R4 :No Appearance
For R5 :Mr.K.K.Ramakrishnan
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed to set aside the order
of the claims Tribunal in MCOP.No.105 of 2010, dated 29.11.2013 on the file
of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal Subordinate Court,
Tenkasi.
2.It is a case of accident, which took place on 15.05.2009 at about 8.00
a.m., when the petitioner was driving a vehicle bearing Registration
No.TN-72-AA-3405, belonging to the fourth respondent near Mayiladivilaku
on Nagercoil – Tirunelveli main road from east to west, at that time, a
container lorry, bearing Registration No.TN-69-F5637, belonging to the
second respondent, came in the opposite direction, driven by its driver in a
rash and negligent manner dashed against petitioner. Due to the said accident,
the petitioner sustained grievous injury and immediately he was taken to the
Asaripallam Hospital and then taken to the Government Hospital, Tirunelveli
for further treatment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.1229 of 2014
3.The claimant has filed a petition in M.C.O.P.No.105 of 2010 on the
file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal Subordinate Court,
Tenkasi, seeking compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-.
4.Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimant, three witnesses were
examined as P.W.1 to P.W.3. and fifteen documents were marked as Exs.P.1 to
P.15. On the the side of the respondents, two witnesses were examined as
R.W.1 and R.W.2 and four documents were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P4.
5.The Tribunal, after considering the pleadings, oral and documentary
evidences and the arguments of the counsel for the claimant and the
respondents and also on appreciating the evidences on record, held that the
accident occurred because of the negligence on the part of the driver of the
first respondent and directed the appellant herein to pay a sum of
Rs.2,96,100/- as compensation at 7.5% interest. Against which, the
appellant/third respondent has filed this present appeal to set aside the award
of compensation passed by the Tribunal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.1229 of 2014
6.Heard Mr.J.S.Murali, learned counsel for the appellant and
Mr.N.Tamilmani, learned counsel for the first respondent and
Mr.K.K.Ramakrishnan, learned counsel for the fifth respondent.
No representation on behalf of the fourth respondent.
7.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the
F.I.R. was registered against the claimant and after investigation, charge
sheet was also filed. The Investigation Officer, who was examined as R.W.1,
also stated that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the driver
of the claimant, but the Criminal Court acquitted the claimant. Based on the
acquittal, the Tribunal has fixed liability on the appellant/Insurance company.
Further, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive.
8.On perusal of the Rough Sketch, which was marked as Ex.R2, clearly
shows that the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-72-AA-3405,
which came from east to west, went on the north side of the road and dashed
the container lorry. Mr.Ganesan, P.W.1, who was examined as eye witness,
stated in his evidence that the container lorry came in a rash and negligent
manner and dashed against the claimant's lorry. So this Court can came to
the conclusion that both are responsible for accident. Therefore, the first
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.1229 of 2014
respondent/claimant is also liable for negligence. The appellant is only liable
to pay 50% of the compensation amount as ordered by the Tribunal.
9. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Doctor,
who was examined as PW3, has assessed the partial permanent disability as
80% and also the wound certificate, which was marked as Ex.P13. But the
Tribunal fixed Rs.2,000/- for 1% of permanent disability, which is very low.
Hence, this Court fixed Rs.3,000/- for 1% disability and awarded
Rs.2,40,000/-. Except the above, all the other terms of the award passed by
the Tribunal is confirmed.
10.Accordingly, the claimant is entitled for compensation as follows:
S.No. Head Amount granted by this
Court
1. Disability Rs. 2,40,000/-
2. Pain and sufferings Rs. 10,000/-
3. Medical expenses Rs. 91,000/-
4. Transportation Rs. 33,100/-
5. Nourishment Rs. 2,000/-
Total Rs. 3,76,100/-
Less 50% Rs. 1,88,050/-
with interest at 7.5% p.a., as awarded by the Tribunal, from the date of claim
petition till the date of realization.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.1229 of 2014
11.In the result,
(i)The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed.
(ii)The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from
Rs.2,96,100/- to Rs.3,76,100/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.
(iii) The orders passed by the Tribunal with regard to the liability is
modified and the negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry bearing
Registration No.TN-72-AA-3405 and the driver of the container lorry
bearing Registration No.TN-69-F-5637 is fixed in the ratio 50:50.
(iv) Therefore, the present appellant is liable to pay only 50% of the
compensation now fixed by this Court together with proportionate interest at
the rate of 7.5% per annum.
(v) The learned counsel appearing for the present appellant – New
India Assurance Company Limited submitted that they have already
deposited the entire compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, they are
permitted to withdraw the excess amount with accrued interest after
following due process of law.
(vi) The first respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw 50% of
compensation now fixed by this Court with accrued interest and cost, after
following due process of law. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
19.01.2022
Index :Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
vsd
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.1229 of 2014
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.
To
1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Principal Subordinate Court,
Tenkasi.
2.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.1229 of 2014
S.ANANTHI, J.
vsd
Judgment made in
C.M.A.(MD).No.1229 of 2014
and
M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2014
19.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
