Madras High Court
The New India Assurance Company ... vs Veerachamy on 16 June, 2022
C.M.A(MD)No.406 of 2012
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 16.06.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.THARANI
C.M.A(MD)No.406 of 2012
The New India Assurance Company Limited
represented by its Branch Manager,
Kodavasal Taluk,
Thiruvaroor District. ... Appellant
Vs
1.Veerachamy
2.V.Narayanan
3.The Regional Manager,
New India Assurance Company Ltd.,
Spencers Towers, Anna Salai,
Chennai. ... Respondents
PRAYER :-
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional Sub Court, Dindigul in
M.C.O.P.No.200 of 2006 dated 23.09.2011.
For Appellant : Mr.D.Sivaraman
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.406 of 2012
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed against the order in M.C.No.200 of 2006 on the file
of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Dindigul. The appellant is the second
respondent in the claim petition. The first respondent is the claimant.
Respondents 2 and 3 are the first and third respondents in the claim petition.
2.Brief substance of the claim petition is as follows:
On 11.12.1995 at about 8 pm, while the petitioner was riding his
bicycle along the left side of the Vedasandur to Melmathinipatti Road, one
Mahindra Alwin Nissan vehicle bearing registration No.TN 51Y 0203 was
driven by its driver, in a rash and negligent manner, came from the opposite
direction, dashed against the first respondent herein and caused him injuries.
The first respondent took treatment in Dindigul and Madurai Government
Hospitals and then in private hospitals. The first respondent herein, sustained
permanent disability and he claimed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation.
3.Brief substance of the counter filed before the Tribunal, by the second
respondent adopted by the third respondent is as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.406 of 2012
The mode of accident is denied. It was the claimant who crossed the
road without giving any signal. The claimant has to prove that the vehicle
was insured with the second respondent and that the driver of the vehicle was
having valid driving license. The amount claimed is excessive.
4.Before the Tribunal, two witnesses were examined and four
documents were marked on the side of the claimant. Two witnesses were
examined and no documents was marked on the side of the respondents 2 and
3. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.42,000/- to be paid jointly or
separately, by all the respondents, in the claim petition.
5.Against the award, the appellant herein has filed this appeal on the
following grounds:
The Tribunal failed to consider that the occurrence took place due to
the negligence of the claimant who crossed the road suddenly and he
voluntarily contributed to the accident. The vehicle was not insured with the
appellant. The burden of proving the facts is on the claimant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.406 of 2012
6.On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the vehicle was not
insured with the appellant and that the accident took place only due to the
sudden crossing of the claimant. It was the claimant, who negligently crossed
the road suddenly and invited the accident. On the side of the appellant, it is
further stated that the First Information Report was registered against the
driver of the vehicle and later it was closed as mistake of fact.
7.The appellant failed to produce any document to prove that the First
Information Report was closed as mistake of fact. In the above
circumstances, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the driver
of the vehicle is responsible for the accident. The appellant herein / second
respondent failed to produce any document to prove that there was no policy
for the offending vehicle. The Policy Register pertaining to the period was
not marked. The Tribunal has observed that a copy of the policy was
available in the case bundle and the Tribunal has also mentioned the policy
number in the order. Even then, the appellant has failed to produce the copy
of the policy.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.406 of 2012
8.In view of the same, it is decided that the vehicle was insured with the
appellant and that the insurance policy was valid at the time of accident. In
view of the above discussion, it is decided that there is nothing sufficient
enough to interfere with the order of the Tribunal.
9. In the result,
(i) The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
(ii) The order passed in M.C.O.P.No.200 of 2006 dated 23.09.2011,
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional Sub Court,
Dindigul, is upheld.
(iii) The present appellant - The New India Assurance Company
Limited, is directed to deposit the entire compensation awarded by the
Tribunal i.e., Rs.42,000/- (if not already deposited) together with interest at
the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of
deposit to the credit of M.C.O.P.No. 200 of 2006, on the file Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Additional Sub Court, Dindigul, within a period of eight
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.406 of 2012
R.THARANI, J.
pnn
(iv) On such deposit being made by the present appellant, the first
respondent/claimant is at liberty to withdraw the same, after following due
process of law. No costs.
16.06.2022
Index: Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
pnn
To
1.Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional Sub Court, Dindigul.
2.The Record Keeper, Vernacular Records,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
C.M.A(MD)No.406 of 2012
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
