Madras High Court
M/S.United India Insurance ... vs Nirmala on 5 June, 2023
C.M.A(MD)No.168 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 05.06.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
C.M.A(MD)No.168 of 2019
and
C.M.P(MD)No.2226 of 2019
M/s.United India Insurance Company Limited,
No.280, Main Road,
1st Floor, Mettupalayam-641 301. ... Appellant/2nd Respondent
Vs.
1.Nirmala ... Respondent/1st Petitioner
2.Banumathi ... Respondent/2nd Petitioner
3.Ruba ... Respondent/3rd Petitioner
4.Jeganathan ... Respondent/1st Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of
Motor Vehicles Act, to set aside order of the tribunal of Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal cum Special District Court, Thiruchirapalli made in
M.C.O.P.No.395 of 2013 dated 24.11.2015 and allow the appeal.
For Appellant : Mr.C.Jawahan Ravindran
For R1-R3 : M/s.J.Balameenakshi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
C.M.A(MD)No.168 of 2019
JUDGMENT
The present appeal has been filed by the insurance company
challenging an award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Madurai in M.C.O.P.No.395 of 2013.
2. According to the claimants, the deceased was travelling as a
pillion rider in a two wheeler. At about 4.30 p.m on 28.02.1995, a lorry
belonging to the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent was
driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two
wheeler. As a result of the said impact, he sustained grievous injuries. He
was originally admitted to Government Hospital Kunnur on 28.02.1995
and thereafter, he was admitted to Ramakrishna Hospital, Coimbatore.
According to the claimants, the deceased had passed away on 09.01.2000
at Trichy. The claimants sought for a compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-.
3. The owner of the offending vehicle had remained ex parte and
the insurance company had filed a counter contending that the death is
not relatable to the injuries said to have been sustained by the deceased
person in the accident. Though the accident is said to have taken place in
the year 1995, only after the death, the claim petition has been filed. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
insurance company also disputed the quantum of compensation.
C.M.A(MD)No.168 of 2019
4. The tribunal after considering the oral and documentary
evidence, came to a conclusion that the deceased had passed away only
due tot he injury sustained by him in the vertebral column and due to the
said injury, he was bed ridden and he was infected and thereafter he
passed away.
5. The tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,36,000/- towards loss of
dependency, a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of love and affection, a
sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of consortium, a sum of Rs.10,000/-
towards funeral expenses and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards
transportation charges. Totally, a sum of Rs.4,06,000/- was awarded by
the tribunal. Challenging the same, the present appeal has been filed.
6. According to the learned counsel appearing for the insurance
company, the claimant is said to have sustained grievous injuries while
he was travelling as a pillion rider in a two wheeler on 28.02.1995. The
deceased was admitted to the Government hospital and later, he is said to
have been treated in Ramakrishna Hospital, Coimbatore for a period of 5
days. Thereafter, there are no medical records whatsoever to establish the
fact that the claimant was taking continuous treatment from the date of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the accident. There are no records to establish that the deceased could not
C.M.A(MD)No.168 of 2019
recover from his injuries till his death. He further contended that P.W.2
who is the doctor, is said to have given treatment only from Novermber
1999 onwards. No medical records are placed before the Court for the
treatment taken by the deceased from the date of accident till his death.
Therefore, there is no connection whatsoever to the death of the deceased
person with the injury sustained by him at the time of the accident.
Therefore, the tribunal was not right in considering the accident as a
death case and proceeded to award compensation. He further pointed out
that for the death of the said Chithambaram, the claim petition has been
filed after a period of 10 years, namely 19.02.2010.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents/claimants had contended that the deceased has sustained
grievous injuries in the accident that happened on 28.02.1995. He was
taking continuous treatment in the private hospital and he is succumbed
to the injuries on 09.01.2000. This could be proved from the examination
of P.W.2 and Exhibit P.23 medical records. When the death is relatable
to the accident and the injuries sustained in the said accident, the tribunal
was right in awarding compensation for the death of the husband of the
1st claimant. Hence, he prayed for confirming the award passed by the
tribunal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.168 of 2019
8. I have carefully considered the submissions made on either side.
9. Admittedly, the deceased had sustained grievous injuries in a
road traffic accident while he was travelling as a pillion rider in a two
wheeler on 28.02.1995. In fact, he himself has lodged an F.I.R before
Wellington Taluk Police station on 28.02.1995 at about 06.30 p.m. In the
said F.I.R, he had pointed out that he had sustained injuries in the hip,
vertebral coloumn and in the hands. Exhibit P.2 reveals that he was
admitted to Ramakrishna Hospital, Coimbatore on 01.03.1995 and
discharged on 06.03.1995. However, the dates have been wrongly noted
as 01.05.1995 and 06.05.1995. Therefore, it is clear that the said
Chithambaram had sustained injuries in a road traffic accident and he
was originally admitted to Government hospital, Kunnur and later,
admitted to Ramakrishna Hospital, Coimbatore.
10. The said Chithambaram had passed away on 09.01.2000.
However, the claimants have not filed a single document to establish the
fact that he was taking treatment from March 1995 till 09.01.2000.
Though they have examined a doctor as P.W.2, his evidence does not
evince confidence of the Court. Even as per the deposition of the said
doctor, he had attended to the deceased only from November 1999. In his
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
cross-examination, he had deposed that the deceased had undergone a
C.M.A(MD)No.168 of 2019
surgery in Ramakrishna hospital. However, no such record has been
placed before the Court. Exhibit P.23 is the prescription said to have
been issued by the said doctor which is a notebook. A perusal of the said
document indicates that he was given treatment from 01.11.1999
onwards which indicates that the patient was conscious and bed ridden.
A perusal of the said prescription does not reveal that the said
Chithambaram was suffering from any injuries which he had sustained at
the time of accident. Though Exhibit P.23 reveals that the doctor has
recommended for a post-mortem, for the reasons best known, it has not
been conducted. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the said
Chithambaram had not died due to the injuries sustained by him at the
time of the accident.
11. From the perusal of the records, it is clear that the said
Chithambaram had sustained some grievous injuries at the time of the
accident on 28.02.1995 as a pillion rider in a two wheeler, which is
covered by a package policy. Therefore, certainly he is entitled to receive
compensation for the injuries sustained by him. However, the said claim
petition has not been filed when he was alive. But only 10 years after his
death, the said claim petition has been filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.168 of 2019
12. The claimants have not placed on record any medical bills
relating to the expenses incurred by the family towards the treatment of
the deceased person. Therefore, this Court is inclined to award a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- which will carry interest at the rate of of 7.5% from the
date of the claim petition. The award of the tribunal, namely
Rs.4,06,000/- is hereby modified and reduced to Rs.1,00,000/- with 7.5%
interest. The 1st claimant shall be entitled to Rs.50,000/- and the
claimants 2 and 3 shall be entitled to Rs.25,000/- each.
13. With the said observations, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
stands allowed to the extent as stated above. No costs. Consequently,
connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
05.06.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
gbg
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
cum Special District Court,
Thiruchirapalli.
2.The Section Officer,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.168 of 2019
R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.
gbg
Judgment made in
C.M.A(MD)No.168 of 2019
05.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
