The Branch Manager vs Kousalyadevi
2023 Latest Caselaw 6937 Mad

                                                                   C.M.A.(MD).Nos.309 and 310 of 2023



                       BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                              DATED : 23.06.2023

                                                     CORAM

                             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISHKUMAR

                                     C.M.A.(MD).Nos.309 and 310 of 2023
                                                    and
                                    C.M.P.(MD).Nos.3879 and 2884 of 2023

                     C.M.A.(MD).No.309 of 2023

                     The Branch Manager,
                     United Indian Insurance Company Limited,
                     No.457, Victoria Extension Road,
                     Thoothukudi.                                                   ... Appellant
                                                   Vs.
                     1.Kousalyadevi
                     2.Minor Jeevi
                     3.Periyasamy
                     4.Kaliyammal
                     5.Amutha                                                   ... Respondents

                     Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
                     Motor Vehicles Act, against the decree and judgment dated 26.03.2019
                     made in M.C.O.P.No.830 of 2015 on the file of the Additional District
                     Judge, Pudukottai.


                                   For Appellant        :       Mr.A.Ilango
                                   For Respondents      :       M/s.A.Banumathy



                     Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                        C.M.A.(MD).Nos.309 and 310 of 2023




                     C.M.A.(MD).No.310 of 2023

                     United Indian Insurance Company Limited,
                     78, Kamarajar Salai,
                     Vauvery Nagar,
                     Kulithalai,
                     Karur District.                                                    ... Appellant
                                                  Vs.
                     1.Kousalyadevi
                     2.Minor Jeyashree
                     3.Periyasamy
                     4.Kaliyammal
                     5.Amutha                                                        ... Respondents

                     Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
                     Motor Vehicles Act, against the decree and judgment dated 06.09.2018
                     made in M.C.O.P.No.29 of 2016 on the file of the Tribunal Judge,
                     Kulithalai, Karur District.


                                        For Appellant         :     Mr.A.Ilango
                                        For Respondents       :     M/s.A.Banumathy


                                                     JUDGMENT

These two appeals have been filed challenging the award passed

by two different Tribunals. C.M.A.(MD).No.309 of 2023 arising out of

the M.C.O.P.No.830 of 2015, on the file of Additional District Judge,

Pudukottai. C.M.A.(MD).No.310 of 2023 arising out of the M.C.O.P.No.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.(MD).Nos.309 and 310 of 2023

29 of 2016 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kulithalai, Karur

District.

2. It is relevant to note that the accident was admittedly took place

on 18.09.2015, when the deceased was travelling in a car, the car dashed

against one tamarind tree. As a result, the deceased Karthikeyan and the

driver Bala Karthick died and two others sustained injuries. In both the

claim petitions, the wife, minor daughter and parents of the deceased

Karthikeyan were arrayed as parties. Originally, the claim application in

M.C.O.P.No.830 of 2015 was filed before the Additional District Judge,

Pudukottai. After filing the said application, once again another

application has been filed by the same persons before the Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Kulithalai. Though the application in M.C.O.P.No.29 of 2016

was filed in a latter time, it was decided earlier on 06.09.2018, wherein a

sum of Rs.12,04,000/- was awarded as compensation, whereas the earlier

application in M.C.O.P.No.830 of 2015 filed in the year 2015 was

disposed by the Additional District Judge, Pudukottai on 26.03.2019,

awarding a sum of Rs.16,22,000/- as compensation. Challenging the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.(MD).Nos.309 and 310 of 2023

same, both the appeals have been filed mainly on the ground that there is

a duplication of claim and both the awards have to be set aside.

3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents

that the claimants are being illiterate only on instruction of the lawyers,

the two claim petitions have been filed and the claimants' signature alone

obtained by some of the lawyers, which resulted in filing of these two

petitions. Hence, the contention that since the said aspects not disputed,

any one of the award passed by both the Tribunal may be sustained.

4. In the light of the above submissions, now the point for

consideration in these appeals is whether the two awards passed for the

same accident can be sustained in the eye of law?

5. Admittedly, the accident is not disputed by the Insurance

Company and the liability also not disputed. The only challenge made in

these appeals is since there was a duplication of award, both the awards

cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.(MD).Nos.309 and 310 of 2023

6. The earlier application in M.C.O.P.No.830 of 2015, a sum of Rs.

60,00,000/- was claimed as compensation, whereas, later application in

M.C.O.P.No.29 of 2016, only a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- claimed as

compensation. However, the Tribunal, on analysing the entire evidence,

has awarded only a sum of Rs.12,04,000/-. The earlier application was

disposed later by the Additional District Judge, Pudukottai and awarded a

sum of Rs.16,22,000/-. It is relevant to note that in M.C.O.P.No.29 of

2016, the Tribunal, after analysing all the witnesses produced by the

petitioners viz., P.Ws.1 to 4 and R.W.1 produced on the side of the

respondents, arrived a compensation of Rs.12,04,000/-, whereas only on

the basis of two witnesses viz., P.Ws.1 and 2, a sum of Rs.16,22,000/-

was awarded.

7. In such a view of the matter, this Court is of the view that when

the petitioners have filed two different claim applications before the two

different Tribunals, they cannot take a different stand in both the

petitions. Having produced sufficient evidence which has been analysed

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.(MD).Nos.309 and 310 of 2023

and award came to be passed first. This Court is of the view that the

award passed in M.C.O.P.No.29 of 2016 has to be sustained, as the

liability and the other aspects have not been disputed by the Insurance

Company. However, the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.830 of 2015, which

is the subject matter of appeal in C.M.A.(MD).No.309 of 2013 is set

aside.

8. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in C.M.A.

(MD).No.309 of 2013 filed by the Insurance Company is allowed and the

awarded passed by the Tribunal for a sum of Rs.16,22,000/- is set aside.

However, the C.M.A.No.310 of 2023 filed challenging the award passed

in M.C.O.P.No.29 of 2016 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Kulithalai, Karur District is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the

connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

23.06.2023

NCC:Yes/No Index:Yes/No

akv

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.(MD).Nos.309 and 310 of 2023

To

1.The Additional District Judge, Pudukottai.

2.The Tribunal Judge, Kulithalai, Karur District.

3.The Record Keeper, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.(MD).Nos.309 and 310 of 2023

N.SATHISHKUMAR, J.

akv

C.M.A.(MD)Nos.309 and 310 of 2023

23.06.2023

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