Madras High Court
The Branch Manager vs Minor Muthumani on 7 September, 2022
,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 07.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN
C.M.A(MD)No.1128 of 2009
The Branch Manager,
National Insurance Company Limited,
4132, Keela Raja Veedhi,
Pudukkottai Town. ... Appellant
vs.
1.Minor Muthumani
S/o.Murugesan
(Represented by his father and guardian
Murugesan, S/o.Muthusamy
2.G.Veerasekaran @ Veerasekar
3.The Branch Manager,
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
No.666/1, G.H.Road,
Theni.
4.R.Paulraj,
S/o. Raman ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the order and decree dated 26.09.2007
passed in M.A.C.O.P.No.59 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Pudukkottai and allow this appeal with cost.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
,
For Appellant : Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan
For Respondents : No appearance
JUDGMENT
************
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed to set aside the order and
decree dated 26.09.2007 passed in M.A.C.O.P.No.59 of 2005 on the file
of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Pudukkottai.
2. The case of the claimant in nutshell is as follows:-
On 10.01.2005 at 5.00 p.m, the first respondent was playing with
his friends on left side of the Varappur- Pulavankaadu road nearby
Veeriyanikula Vadakarai and a tractor bearing registration No.TN-50-
A-9608 owned by the second respondent attached with a Trailer bearing
Registration No.TN-49-E-0459 owned by the fourth respondent was
driven by the driver of the second respondent in a rash and negligent
manner and dashed against the first respondent. Due to which, he
sustained grievous injury and was taken to Thanjavur Government
Medical College Hospital for treatment and thereafter, he had taken
treatment in a private hospital. Hence, the first respondent filed the
claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
,
3.The second and fourth respondents (owner of the Tractor and
Trailer) remained absent before the Tribunal and therefore, they were set
ex-parte. The National Insurance Company and the Oriental Insurance
Company contested the claim petition on all the grounds available to the
insured.
4.Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimant/first respondent,
four witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W4 and nine documents
were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.9. On the side of the appellant and the third
respondents, seven witnesses were examined as R.W.1 to R.W7 and eight
documents were marked as Exs.R1 to R8.
5.The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary
evidence and arguments made on either side, partly allowed the claim
petition and awarded a sum of Rs.3,90,000/- with interest at 7.5%
per annum as compensation to the claimant and fixed the negligence on
the part of both the vehicles namely Tractor and Trailer in the ratio 50:50.
Against which, the appellant/Insurance Company has filed the present
appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
,
6.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance
Company contended that the driver, who had driven the tractor, is not an
employee of the fourth respondent herein, who is the owner of the trailer
and that no vicarious liability could be fastened on the fourth respondent
herein. The coverage of passengers for the trailer involved in the
accident does not arise either under the Motor Vehicles Act or under the
Policy of Insurance issued by the appellant. He would further submit
that the First Information Report also reveals that only the tractor hit
against the claimant, pushed him down and caused injuries to the
claimant. Therefore, he prayed this Court to allow this appeal.
7.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance
Company and perused the records. There is no representation for the
respondents.
8.A perusal of the records would show that the tractor in the case
was insured with the third respondent/insurance company. Further, a
perusal of the documents would show that the injured fell down on
collusion with the Tractor and wheel of the Trailer run over him and
thus, caused the accident. Though it was submitted that the Trailer in this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
,
case has no connection with the Tractor, the accident has taken place
only due to the Tractor and Trailer in this Case. The Tractor belongs to
the second respondent was insured with the third respondent and the
Trailer belongs to the fourth respondent was insured with the appellant
and finally, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the appellant as well
as the third respondent are jointly liable to pay the compensation. The
said finding of the tribunal seems to be legally sustainable and thus needs
no interference.
9.Further, on appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence,
the Tribunal has rightly awarded a sum of Rs.3,90,000/- as total
compensation and directed the appellant and the third respondent herein
to pay a sum of Rs.1,95,000/- each on behalf of the second and fourth
respondents. Regarding the quantum of compensation, the appellant
insurance company has not disputed the same. The other of the judgment
stands as it is.
10.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed
confirming the award and decree dated 26.09.2007 made in
M.A.C.O.P.No.59 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
,
Tribunal, Sub Court, Pudukkottai. The appellant/Insurance Company is
directed to deposit the award amount as awarded by the Tribunal to the
credit of M.A.C.O.P.No.59 of 2005, less the amount already deposited, if
any, along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of
petition till date of realization and proportionate costs, within a period of
six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such
deposit being made, since the first respondent herein is a minor at the
time of accident, the award amount is ordered to be deposited in any one
of the Nationalized Bank till he attains majority and the father/guardian
of the first respondent is permitted to withdraw the interest directly from
the bank, once in three months in order to maintain the minor. No costs.
07.09.2022
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
cp
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
,
To
1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Sub Court, Pudukkottai.
2.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
,
A.A.NAKKIRAN .,J.
cp
JUDGMENT MADE IN
C.M.A(MD)No.1128 of 2009
07.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
