Madras High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Dhanalaksmi on 10 March, 2023
C.M.A.(MD).No.1180 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 10.03.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
C.M.A(MD)No.1180 of 2017
The Divisional Manager,
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
Divisional Office – II,
North Veli Street,
Madurai. ..... Appellant /2nd Respondent
-vs-
1. Dhanalaksmi
W/o. Late Thangaraj
2. Kavitha
W/o.Veeraiya
3. T.Kumaran
S/o. Late Thangaraj
4. T.Kannan
S/o. Late Thangaraj .... 1 to 4 Respondents/ 1 to 4 Petitioners
5. S.Arunachalam
S/o. Solaiappan .... 5th Respondent/1st Respondent
(5th Respondent remained
ex-parte before the lower Court)
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.1180 of 2017
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Award made in M.C.O.P.No.68 of
2013, dated 14.03.2016, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
cum Special District Judge (for MCOP cases) Madurai.
For Appellant : Mr.A.Ilango
For Respondents : No appearance
JUDGMENT
The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the Insurance
Company challenging the Award passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.68 of 2013, on the file of the learned Special District
Judge (for MCOP cases), Madurai.
2. The claimants are the legal heirs of the deceased Thangaraj.
According to the claim petition the said Thangaraj was hit by a Tata Sumo
while he was walking on Thathaneri main road, on 30.09.2009 at about 4.30
p.m. The injured person was taken in the same vehicle to the hospital. Since
the injured person had died on the way, the driver had dropped the deceased
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.1180 of 2017
near the bridge in Aruldaspuram. Hence, the claimant has further contended
that the deceased was working as a Carpenter and claimed a compensation of
sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only)
3. A counter was filed by the owner of the vehicle but remained ex-
parte and the Insurance Company had filed a counter contending that the said
vehicle was not involved in the accident at all and the driver of the said
vehicle is contesting the criminal case which has not attained finality. He had
further contended that the compensation claim is exorbitant.
4. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence of P.W.2, the Ex.P.1-
FIR and Ex.P.4- Charge Sheet, arrived at a finding that there is no dispute
with regard to the involvement of the Tata Sumo in the said accident.
Thereafter, the Tribunal has proceeded taking into consideration the monthly
income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- (Rupees Four thousand and Five
Hundred only) per month. Therefore, they have proceeded to arrive at a total
compensation of Rs.4,59,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Fifty Nine Thousand
only) and directed the Insurance Company to pay the award amount. This
award is under challenge in the present appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.1180 of 2017
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant /Insurance Company
had contended that the company has taken a specific stand in their counter
that the offending vehicle was not involved in the said accident. The
claimants have miserably failed to prove the fact that the said vehicle has
involved in the said accident, when the involvement of the offending vehicle
is in dispute. He further contended that though it is contented in the claim
petition that the deceased was taken in the same offending vehicle for
treatment, but the body of the injured person is said to have been found near
the bridge in Aruldaspuram. Therefore, he doubted the very accident itself.
He further contended that though one Ganesan is said to be the witness of the
accident, has not been examined. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for
the appellant had contended that the claimants have not proved the
involvement of the vehicle and hence, the award passed by the appellant
Insurance Company is liable to be set aside.
6. Though the claimants have been served, there is no appearance either
in person or through their counsel.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.1180 of 2017
7. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant is that the claimants have not established the involvement of the
offending vehicle in the said accident.
8. The Insurance Company has appointed one Batcha as their
investigator to investigate into the accident. After investigation, he has filed a
report to the effect that the offending vehicle was involved in the accident and
the owner of the said vehicle has also accepted the involvement of the
vehicle in the said accident. The said Investigator has been examined as
R.W.1 on the side of the Insurance Company. He has filed an affidavit to the
effect that the vehicle was involved in the accident and he has also been cross
examined on the side of the claimants. Therefore, it is clear that the
Investigator appointed on the side of the Insurance Company himself has
admitted about the involvement of the vehicle in the said accident. No other
evidence has been let in on the side of the Insurance Company to prove the
non-involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident. Therefore, this
Court does not find any ground to interfere with regard to the involvement of
the vehicle in the said accident.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.1180 of 2017
9. As far as the quantum is concerned, the Tribunal has taken a very
conservative view and also considering the occupation of the deceased, fixed
a monthly income of Rs.4,500/- (Rupees Four Thousand and Five Hundred
only) and had awarded a total sum of Rs.4,59,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Fifty
Nine Thousand only). Therefore, this Court, does not find any infirmity in the
quantum of Award passed by the Tribunal and I do not find any merit in the
appeal.
10. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There
shall be no order as to costs.
10.03.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
ebsi
To
1. The Special District Judge (for MCOP cases),
Madurai.
2. The Section Officer,
Vernacular Records,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.1180 of 2017
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.
ebsi
C.M.A.(MD)No.1180 of 2017
10.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
