The Divisional Manager vs Jayavel
2023 Latest Caselaw 5654 Mad

                                                                        C.M.A(MD)No.1301 of 2009



                           BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                DATED: 07.06.2023

                                                     CORAM

                                  THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

                                            C.M.A(MD)No.1301 of 2009


                     The Divisional Manager,
                     United India Insurance Company Limited,
                     Railway Feeder Road,
                     Virudhunagar.                         ... Appellant/2nd Respondent


                                                       Vs.

                     1.Jayavel                                ... Respondent/Petitioner

                     2Karthikeyan                             ... Respondent/1st Respondent

                     PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of
                     Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and decree in M.C.O.P.No.259
                     of 2004, dated 25.10.2005 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
                     Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Virudhunagar.


                                     For Appellant   : Mr.J.S.Murali

                                     For Respondents : No Appearance




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                     1/6
                                                                                 C.M.A(MD)No.1301 of 2009

                                                          JUDGMENT

The present appeal has been filed by the insurance company

challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Virudhunagar in M.C.O.P.No.259 of 2004 primarily on the ground of

liability and quantum.

2. According to the injured claimant, he was a pillion rider in a two

wheeler and it was driven in a rash and negligent manner by the rider,

namely Sabarigiri and he was thrown away from the said vehicle and he

had sustained grievous injuries. He claimed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-

towards compensation.

3. The owner cum rider of the vehicle had remained ex parte and

the insurance company had filed a counter contending that the rider of

the motor bike was no way responsible or connected with the alleged

accident and also disputed the injuries sustained by the claimant in the

said accident.

4. The tribunal after considering the oral evidence of P.W.1,

namely the claimant, came to a conclusion that the accident has happened

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A(MD)No.1301 of 2009

only due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the rider of the

two wheeler. The tribunal relied upon Exhibit P.1/F.I.R, Exhibit P.

4/charge sheet and Exhibit P.5/judgment of the Criminal Court, dated

28.08.2003 and arrived at the above said finding. This Court does not

find any reason to interfere in the said finding of the tribunal with regard

to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the rider of the two

wheeler.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant had contended

that the quantum has been fixed by the tribunal on a higher side. The

tribunal has fixed a sum of Rs.40,000/- for 20% disability, a sum of Rs.

20,000/- towards pain and suffering, a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards

transportation charges, a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards extra nourishment.

Based on Exhibits P.8 and P.9 medical bills, a sum of Rs.53,153/- has

been awarded. Totally, a sum of Rs.1,17,153/- has been awarded.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant had further

contended that the delay in registering the F.I.R creates suspicion with

regard to the manner of accident. However, the tribunal has arrived at a

finding that immediately after the accident, the injured claimant has got

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A(MD)No.1301 of 2009

admitted in the hospital and priority has to be given only for admission

into the hospital and only on a later point of time, F.I.R came to be

registered. This Court does not find any reason to disturb the said

finding.

7. In the said accident, the claimant has sustained fractures in the

floor of maxible extending into pre-maxible. He has also sustained

multiple comminuted fractures in the anterior and posterior of walls of

maxillary antrum. There are fractures in the nasal bones and nasal septum

also. Therefore, considering the injuries sustained by the claimant and

the treatment taken by the claimant which is reflected through Exhibits

P.6 to P.10, this Court does not find that the quantum of award is either

excessive or unreasonable under anyone of the heads.

8. Hence, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed. No

costs.

                                                                                      07.06.2023
                     NCC              :   Yes / No
                     Index            :   Yes / No
                     Internet         :   Yes / No

                     gbg

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

                                                                      C.M.A(MD)No.1301 of 2009




                     To

1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Virudhunagar.

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.1301 of 2009

R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.

gbg

Judgment made in C.M.A(MD)No.1301 of 2009

07.06.2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis