Madras High Court
The Oriental Insurance Company ... vs Aachiammal ...1St on 10 June, 2022
C.M.A.No.2822 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADRAS
DATED : 10.06.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
C.M.A.No. 2822 of 2017
and
C.M.P.No.16125 of 2017
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
II Floor, Parimalam Complex,
No.11, EVN Road,
Erode – 638 011. ... Appellant/5th respondent
Vs.
1.Aachiammal ...1st Respondent/Petitioner
2.R. Velusamy
3M. Mallika
4.M/s.National Insurance Company Limited,
No.78, Thiruvenkatasamy Chetty Street,
Erode – 638 001.
5.S.Velusamy … Respondents 2 to 5/
Respondents 1 to 4
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2822 of 2017
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act against the Award and Decree dated 18.01.2017 in
M.C.O.P.No.739 of 2013 on the file of the learned Special Subordinate
Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Erode.
For Appellant : Mr.M.B.Raghavan
for M/s.M.B.Gopalan Associates
For Respondents : Mr.C.S.Saravanan for R1
Mr.D.Bhaskaran for R4
R2, R3 and R5 - Served
No appearance
JUDGMENT
The insurer of the motor cycle bearing Registration No.TN 38
BC 0384 belonging to the husband of the petitioner/1st respondent is
the appellant before this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2822 of 2017
2.The brief resume of the facts that has been culminated in filing
of the present appeal is narrated herein below:
The 1st respondent has filed M.C.O.P.No.739 of 2013 on the file
of the learned Special Subordinate Judge, Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Erode, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.4,31,000/-
which was restricted to a sum of Rs.4 lakhs for the injuries sustained by
her in a motor vehicle accident. It is her contention that on 16.09.2013
about 01.00p.m., the 1st respondent's husband Velusamy was riding his
Bajaj Platina motor cycle, bearing Registration No.TN 33 BC 0348 on
the left side of the Kangayam to Erode Road with her travelling pillion
in a very careful and cautious manner and its moderate speed. While
so, a Tipper lorry, bearing Registration No.TN 36 1284 belonging to
the 3rd respondent and insured with the 4th respondent, driven by the
2nd respondent rashly and negligently and in a high speed dashed
against the motor cycle, as a result of which, both the petitioner and her
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2822 of 2017
husband had been thrown away and sustained injuries. Therefore, the
1st respondent had filed the above claim petition.
3.By order dated 27.02.2015, the owner and the insurer of the
motor vehicle were impleaded as 4th and 5th respondents, respectively,
in M.C.O.P.No.739 of 2013 by the Tribunal and the 5th respondent is
the appellant herein. The owner and the driver of the Tipper lorry
remained ex parte and it was only the Insurer of the Tipper lorry who
filed a counter.
4.The 5th respondent/appellant had filed a counter statement
contending that even as per the claimant, the accident was only the
result of the negligence of the driver of the Tipper lorry and therefore,
there was no necessity to implead the appellant and the owner of the
motor cycle.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2822 of 2017
5.The Tribunal, after considering the evidence, came to the
conclusion that the accident was solely on account of the negligence of
the driver of the motor cycle and that the driver of the Tipper lorry was
in no way responsible for the accident. The Tribunal has relied upon
the First Information Report which has been closed as a mistake of fact
by the police authorities and also relied upon Ex.P.4 - MVI Report
which shows that there were no damages to the lorry and that it was
only the two wheeler that sustained damages which would clearly show
that the accident had occurred in the manner described in the claim
petition.
6.That apart, the Tribunal has also considered the prevaricating
evidence of the claimant/1st respondent herein. Ultimately, the
Tribunal has awarded a compensation of a sum of Rs.2,20,600/- and
the liability has been fixed on the 4th respondent motor cycle and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2822 of 2017
consequently, on the insurer, the appellant herein. Challenging the
same, the 5th respondent has filed the above appeal.
7.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused
the papers.
8.A perusal of the Award passed by the Tribunal would clearly
show that the Tribunal has considered the Ex.P.1 – First Information
Report as well as Ex.P.3 - Observation Mahazar and Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.5
- MVI Reports to come to the conclusion that the lorry was not
involved in the accident. That apart, the evidence of PW1 in her cross
examination would also show that it was only the driver of the motor
cycle who is responsible for the accident. Therefore, in the light of this
overwhelming evidence, I see no reason to interfere with the order
passed by the Tribunal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2822 of 2017
Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed.
Consequent to the dismissal of the appeal, the appellant Insurance
Company is directed to deposit the entire amount, less the amount
already deposited, with proportionate accrued interest and costs, to the
credit of M.C.O.P.No.739 of 2013 on the file of the learned Special
Subordinate Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Erode, within a
period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if
not deposited earlier. On such deposit, the 1st respondent is permitted
to withdraw the entire award amount with proportionate accrued
interest and costs, by making necessary applications. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
10.06.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking order / Non speaking order
mps
To
The Special Subordinate Judge,
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Erode.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2822 of 2017
P.T. ASHA, J,
mps
C.M.A.No. 2822 of 2017
and
C.M.P.No.16125 of 2017
10.06.2022
(½)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
