Madras High Court
The New India Assurance Company ... vs Sumathi on 5 June, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.06.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN
C.M.A.No.1289 of 2014
AND
M.P.No.1 of 2014
The New India Assurance Company Ltd.,
No.375, Anna Salai, 2nd floor,
Saidapet,
Chennai 600 015. .. Appellant /2nd respondent
Vs.
1.Sumathi
2.Mari
3. Velmurugan .. Respondents
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated 23.04.2013 made
in M.C.O.P.No.188 of 2011 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
(III Additional District Court, Tiruvallur) Poonamallee.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Neethe Perumal
For Respondents : Mr.Varadhakamaraj
(Vakalat not filed)
R1 & R2 – Insufficient address
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the award dated
23.04.2013 made in M.C.O.P.No.188 of 2011 on the file of Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, (III Additional District Court, Tiruvallur) Poonamallee.
2.The appellant is the second respondent in M.C.O.P.No.188 of 2011
on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (III Additional District Court,
Tiruvallur) Poonamallee. The respondents 1 and 2 filed the above said claim
petition claiming a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- as compensation for the fatal injuries
sustained by one Vetrivel in the accident that took place on 19.01.2011.
3. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary
evidence has held that the accident occurred only due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the car bearing Regn.No.TN-22-D-4602,
belonging to the third respondent and directed the appellant/Insurance
Company to pay a sum of Rs.5,60,000/- as compensation to the claimants.
4. Challenging the said award dated 23.04.2013 made in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.C.O.P.No.188 of 2011, the appellant has come out with the present appeal.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that
the award passed by the Tribunal is contrary to law, against the weight of the
evidence and probabilities of the case. He further submitted that the third
respondent vehicle was fixed in this case to claim compensation from the
appellant / Insurance company. The Tribunal failed to note that a person who
is no way connected is shown as eye witness in this case and he is fixing the
vehicle. The Tribunal failed to note that in the FIR given by the brother of the
victim, it was stated that a car has hit the victim and went without stopping.
When the complaint was given, the number of the car is unknown. It has also
failed to see that the Accident Register report shows that the cause of the
accident was motor cycle driven by the victim got skid and he fell down and
suffered grievous injuries. No motor vehicle was involved in the accident. The
Tribunal on wrong assumption goes on to find that somebody must have
admitted the victim in the hospital and they would have informed that the
motor cycle got skid and that cannot be taken into account. It ought to have
dismissed the case since the vehicle has been fixed to cheat the insurance
company. The amount awarded by the Tribunal under different heads are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
excessive and prayed for setting aside the award passed by the Tribunal. He
further submitted that the appellant / Insurance Company has deposited 50%
of the award amount before the Tribunal.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents/claimants has disputed that
the contention by stating that the Tribunal has granted reasonable
compensation under various heads. He further submitted that the liability
fixed on the part of the Insurance Company is correct. Therefore, it does not
call for any interference. Hence the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
7. From the materials available on record, it is seen that the deceased
died due to the head injuries sustained by him in the accident which was
disclosed by Ex.P2. PW2 has deposed that the offending Sumo car was driven
by its driver in a rash and neglignt manner at a high speed and dashed against
the deceased and thereby caused the said accident. The appellant has
summoned Sub-Inspector of Police, Poonamallee, Traffic Wing and examined
him as RW1. The copy of AR of the deceased Vetrivel is produced as Ex.R1.
Wherein it is reocrded as “H/o.RTA; while travelling in a two wheeler got skid
and fall”. It is pointed out by the appellant that the entry in Ex.R1 regarding
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
manner of accident and argued that the deceased himself rode the motor cycle
negligently and atrributed for the accident and third respondent's vehicle
driver is no way responsible for the accidnt. The deceased was unconscious at
the time of admission and someone who brought him to the hospital could
have given the particulars. Therefore, on the basis of the entries found in
Ex.R1 Accident Register copy alone, it cannot be presumed that the deceased
was solely responsible for the accident. The deposition of the PW2 has
corroborated with the Ex.P1/FIR and Ex.P2/Post mortem certificate. Hence
the driver of the offending vehicle is solely responsible for the accident. The
third respondent as the owner of the offending vehicle viz., Sumo car is
vicariouly liable for the tortuous act committed by his driver. Since the
appellant is the insurer of the offending vehcile, it is liable to indemnify the
insured namely third respondent, since the Insurance Policy of the offending
vehicle was alive at the time of accident. Ex.P5 is the copy of the insurance
policy. Hence the Tribunal has held that the appellant is liable to pay
compensation to the claimants. There is no error in the above finding of the
Tribunal warranting interference by this Court.
8. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the contention
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal has awarded an
excessive amount of Rs.5,60,000/-. In view of the same, considering all the
materials on record in its entirety, the total compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is not excessive, warranting interference by this Court.
9. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the
award passed by the Tribunal is hereby confirmed. The Appellant is directed
to deposit the balance of the award amount along with interest and costs,
within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment to the credit of MCOP.No.188 of 2011 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, (III Additional District Court, Thiruvallur,
Poonamallee). On such deposit, the Tribunal is directed to transfer the
amount to the account of the claimants, within two weeks thereafter. No costs.
Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
05.06.2023
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
gv
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(III Additional District Court, Tiruvallur)
Poonamallee.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court,
Madras.
A.A.NAKKIRAN.,J.
Gv
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1289 of 2014
AND
M.P.No.1 of 2014
05.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
