Madras High Court
Reliance General Insurance ... vs Baskar on 6 September, 2022
CMA (MD)Nos.270 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 06.09.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
CMA (MD)Nos.270 of 2018 and 857 of 2022
and CMP(MD) No.3845 of 2018
CMA(MD) No.270/2018
Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.,
Through its Branch Manager,
No.19, Reliance Centre
Walchand Hirachand Marg
Balard Estate, Mumbai. .. Appellant/2nd
respondent
Vs.
1.Baskar .. Respondent/Petitioner
2.Akshay Law Shaw .. Respondents/
1st respondent
CMA(MD) No.857/2022
1.Baskar .. Appellant/
Petitioner
Vs.
1. Akshay Law Shaw
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA (MD)Nos.270 of 2018
2.Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.,
Through its Branch Manager,
No.19, Reliance Centre
Walchand Hirachand Marg
Bailard Estate, Mumbai. .. Respondents/respondents
Common Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed under Section 173
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the fair and decreetal order dated
13.11.2017 made in MCOP No.823 of 2014 on the file of Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, (Special Sub Court), Tirunelveli.
For Appellant in CMA :
No.270/18 and 2nd
Mr.S.Srinivasaraghavan
respondent in CMA
No.857/22
For 1st respondent in : Mr.T.Selvakumaran
CMA No.270/18 and
appellant in CMA No.
857/22
For 2nd respondent in : No appearance in both appeals
CMA No.270 and 1st
respondent in CMA
No.857/22
COMMON JUDGMENT
J. NISHA BANU,J.
and
N. ANAND VENKATESH,J.
The Insurance Company and the claimant have filed the appeal and
cross appeal questioning the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Special Sub Court), Tirunelveli, in MCOP No.823/2014, dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA (MD)Nos.270 of 2018
13.11.2017.
2.The respondent in CMA No.857 of 2022, who was the claimant
before the Tribunal, filed a petition seeking for compensation on account of
the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that took place on
07.05.2014.
3. The Tribunal, on appreciation of evidence and after considering the
claim of compensation made under various heads, passed an award granting
a total compensation of Rs.31,51,500/- along with interest at the rate of
7.5% per annum. Aggrieved by the same, the Insurance company has
questioned the award both on the ground of negligence and quantum. The
claimants have also filed a cross appeal in CMA(MD) No.857/2022 seeking
enhancement of compensation.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the claimant and the learned counsel
for the Insurance Company.
5. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either
side and the material available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA (MD)Nos.270 of 2018
6. Insofar as the issue of negligence is concerned, the Tribunal, on
carefully analyzing the evidence of P.W.1 and after considering the materials
available on record, came to a categorical conclusion that the lorry that was
driven by the second respondent all of a sudden turned to the right without
any indication and as a result, the two wheeler driven by the claimant
dashed in the lorry and he sustained grievous injuries in his head. Thus, the
Tribunal has found that the accident had taken place only due to the gross
negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. This Court does not find
any ground to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal.
7. So far as the quantum of compensation that was granted by the
Tribunal, the Insurance Company has questioned the grant of Rs.1 lakh for
future maintenance expenses. According to the learned counsel for the
Insurance Company, once the Tribunal has given compensation of Rs.1 lakh
for future medical expenses, there was no reason to grant an extra Rs.1 lakh
for future maintenance expenses. Per contra, the claimant has sought for
enhancement of compensation mainly on the ground that no compensation
was granted towards amenities. That apart, the claimant is also seeking for
enhancement on all the heads.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA (MD)Nos.270 of 2018
8. In the considered view of this Court, the compensation granted by
the Tribunal can be sustained as it is by replacing the head of future
maintenance expenses with the head of amenities. By doing so, the claim
made by both the parties can be balanced without disturbing the findings
and the quantum arrived at by the Tribunal.
9. Both the appeals are disposed of in the above terms. The Insurance
Company shall deposit the compensation amount along with accrued
interest, after giving credit to the amount that had already been deposited.
Such deposit shall be made within a period of eight weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. The claimants will be entitled to withdraw
the amount in the manner indicated by the Tribunal, after giving credit to the
amount already withdrawn by them, if any. No costs. Consequently
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
(J.N.B.,J.) (N.A.V.,J.)
06.09.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
RR
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA (MD)Nos.270 of 2018
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
(Special Sub Court), Tirunelveli.
2.The VR Section
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA (MD)Nos.270 of 2018
J. NISHA BANU,J.
and
N. ANAND VENKATESH,J.
RR
CMA (MD)Nos.270 of 2018 and 857 of 2022
06.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
