Madras High Court
National Insurance Company Limited vs Sumitha … on 28 December, 2023
C.M.A.No.2730 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.12.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI
C.M.A.No.2730 of 2014
and
M.P.No.1 of 2014
National Insurance Company Limited,
Divisional Office-2,
11, Ramakrishna Road,
Salem-7. ... Appellant / 2nd Respondent
vs.
1.Sumitha … Respondent / Petitioner
2.Gnanendra Kumar Pathak … Respondents / 1st respondent
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, against the Judgment and Decree dated
17.04.2010 made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.298 of 2010 on the file of Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, (Special Subordinate Judge), Salem.
For Appellant : Mrs.N.B.Sureka
For Respondents : No Appearance
JUDGMENT
The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company has preferred this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
appeal against the judgment and decree passed in
M.A.C.T.O.P.No.298 of 2010 on the file of Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, (Special Subordinate Judge), Salem, on the point of
negligence.
2. The claim petition was filed under Section 163 A of Motor
Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries
sustained in the road accident that occurred on 20.08.2009.
3. The Tribunal after evaluating the evidence has ordered
compensation of Rs.1,97,000/- with 7.5% interest payable from the
date of filing of petition till the date of deposit, payable by the 2nd
respondent/Insurance Company at the first instance with liberty to
recover the same from the 1st respondent at a later stage.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance
Company would strenuously contend that as per Ex.X1, the accident
register of Gokulam Hospital and the discharge summary issued by
the same hospital, it is mentioned that due to the accidental fall while
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
starting her two wheeler, near her house, she has sustained injuries. It
is his further argument that in this regard, the staff of Gokulam
Hospital has been examined as RW1 (Mr.Senthilkumar). There is no
proper driving licence for the claimant at the time of accident.
Therefore, the appellant/Insurance Company is not liable to pay
compensation to the claimant herein.
5. It is the evidence of PW1 that on 20.08.2009, at about 8.30
a.m., when the claimant was proceeding in her two wheeler, bearing
Reg.No.TN-30-D-9011, along the junction main road at the point of
blue moon hotel, a two wheeler bearing Reg.No.PY-01-AW-9063,
which came from the five roads towards junction, hit on her vehicle
and the complainant fell down whereby she sustained fracture over her
right leg and sustained injuries all over the body.
6. From a perusal of Ex.P1, F.I.R., the date of accident was
20.08.2009 and after three days, complaint was registered at the
instance of the husband of the claimant herein. The F.I.R., reads that
when the claimant was proceeding along the junction road, the above
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
said two wheeler came from the five roads and hit against her and
thereby she sustained injuries. But, in the treatment records, it is
mentioned as alleged history of accidental fall. Further, in the F.I.R., it
is mentioned as it is an accident and PW1 has also stated that when
she was proceeding along the junction road, she was hit by a two
wheeler which came in a rash and negligent manner.
7. It is pertinent to note that when the claim petition is filed under
Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act, the liability details and the extent
there of need not be pleaded and proved. Section 163 A of the Motor
Vehicles Act is extracted hereunder:
''163 A. Special provisions as to payment of
compensation on structured formula basis.—
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this
Act or in any other law for the time being in force or
instrument having the force of law, the owner of the
motor vehicle or the authorised insurer shall be liable to
pay in the case of death or permanent disablement
due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle,
compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to
the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
“permanent disability” shall have the same meaning
and extent as in the Workmen’s Compensation Act,
1923 (8 of 1923).
(2) In any claim for compensation under sub-
section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead
or establish that the death or permanent disablement in
respect of which the claim has been made was due to
any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of
the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other
person.
(3)The Central Government may, keeping in
view the cost of living by notification in the Official
Gazette, from time to time amend the Second
Schedule.''
A careful perusal of the above said provision, it indicates that the
negligence aspect need not be pleaded and proved to sustain a claim
under Section 163A of the Act.
8. The staff of Gokulam Hospital is examined as RW1 and the
Insurance Company's Officer is examined as RW2.
9. As the claim petition is filed under Section 163 A of Motor
Vehicles Act, the claimant need not to plead and prove negligence.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Therefore, based on the above said discussions, this appeal is liable to
be dismissed.
10. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed
and the Judgment and Decree dated 17.04.2010 made in
M.A.C.T.O.P.No.298 of 2010 on the file of Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, (Special Subordinate Judge), Salem, is confirmed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
28.12.2023
Index : Yes/No
Speaking / Non-speaking order
ssn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.KALAIMATHI, J.,
ssn
To:
1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Special Subordinate Judge,
Salem.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai.
and
28.12.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
