Madras High Court
Reliance General Insurance Co. vs Ramalingam on 21 March, 2023
C.M.A.No.2941 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED:21.03.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN
C.M.A.No.2941 of 2019
and
CMP.No.15590 of 2019
1.Reliance General Insurance Co.,Ltd.,
Rep by its Manager,
Sri Lakshmi Complex, First Floor,
Bharathi Street, Omalur,
Main Road, Swarnapuri
Salem – 636 004.
2.Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd.,
Rep by its Manager,
No.408, 3rd Floor,,
Perundurai Road, Erode – 638 011. ... Appellants
..Vs..
1.Ramalingam
2.M.Jayashankar
3.G.Jayavelu
4.Sri Ram General Insurance Co., Ltd.,
Rep by its Manager, 10003-E-8,
Reko Industrial Area, Siddapura,
Jaipur, Rajasthan – 302 022.
5.Silambarasan ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2015
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2941 of 2019
made in MCOP.No.264 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal (IV Additional District Court, Bhavani, Erode District)
For Appellants : Mr.S.Arunkumar
For Respondents : Mr.K.Poomalai for R4
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the
appellants to set aside the impugned award dated 30.09.2015 passed in
MCOP.No.264 of 2011 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (IV
Additional District Court, Bhavani, Erode District).
2. On 29.03.2011 at 12.00 p.m., when the claimant who was driver-
cum-cleaner of a Eicher Van bearing Registration No.TN-29-AW-0334
proceeding from Sankari to Erode on the main road, near Ottamethai
Sullikadu at Pallipalayam with loaded turmeric bags, a lorry bearing Regn.
No.TN-30-S-4788 going in front of the van, the second respondent, who is
the driver of the lorry suddenly stopped the lorry on the middle of the road
due to which the claimant, though applied brake, dashed the van behind the
lorry. Due to the said accident, the claimant sustained simple and grievous
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2941 of 2019
injuries all over the body. Thereafter, he has been taken to the Government
Hospital, Erode for first aid treatment and admitted in Dharun Hospital
Salem as in-patient. Claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, the
claimant has filed a petition in MCOP.No.264 of 2011 before the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, IV Additional District Court, Bhavani, Erode
District.
3.The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary
evidence held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent
driving by the driver of the lorry belonging the third respondent and
directed the appellants 1 and 2 and 5th respondent to pay jointly and
severally a sum of Rs.2,00,950/- as compensation to the first
respondent/claimant.
4.Aggrieved against the said award dated 30.09.2015 made in
M.C.O.P.No..264 of 2011, the appellants-Insurnace Companies have come
out with the present appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2941 of 2019
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/Insurance
Companies contended that the award and decree of the Tribunal is contrary
to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. It has failed to note
PW2 is not a competent expert witness to assist the court in arriving at
correct assessment. It erred in relying on the exaggerated assessment of
PW2 as he has failed to annex the working sheet and guidelines followed
enabling to testify the disablement certified by him. It failed to note that the
alleged injuries do not result to permanent disability muchless to the extent
of 40%. It has also erred in awarding Rs.1,20,000/- towards permanent
disability on assumptions and presumptions. Thus, the award of the
Tribunal is irrational, unjust and excessive and liable to be set aside.
Hence, they pray for setting aside the award passed by the Tribunal.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent
contended that the driver of the lorry suddenly stopped the lorry on the
middle of the road without any signal and indication at night time and hence
the claimant/first respondent is unable to escape from the mishap and
dashed the van behind the lorry though he applied brake. The accident
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2941 of 2019
occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry
belonging to the third respondent. The appellants has not let in any
evidence to prove their contention that accident has occurred due to rash
and negligent driving of the driver of the van. The Tribunal has granted only
a sum of Rs.2,00,950/- as compensation and the same is not excessive and
prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
7.Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned
counsel for the fourth respondent and perused the entire materials available
on record.
8. From the materials available on record, it is seen that the first
respondent/claimant has contended that the accident has occurred only due
to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry belonging to the third
respondent. To substantiate his contention, first respondent was examined
as P.W.1, who deposed the manner of the accident. To corroborate the
evidence of P.W.1, the first respondent marked Ex.P1/F.I.R. and Ex.P2/copy
of Observation Mahazar. The 5th respondent gave complaint in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2941 of 2019
Pallipalayam Police Statoin which was marked as Ex.P5. According to
Ex.P5, the driver of the lorry is made responsible for the accident. The 5th
respondent has submitted that he possess valid driving license at the time of
accident and insurance policy coverage from 15.12.2010 to 14.12.2011.
Thus the evidence of 5th respondent corroborated with the deposition of
RW1. Hence the driver of the lorry caused the accident by suddenly
stopping the lorry without any signal and indication. In the absence of any
contra evidence, the Tribunal accepted the evidence of P.W.1 which was
corroborated with the Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 and deposition of RW1 and held that
the accident has occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the
driver of the lorry belonging to the third respondent. There is no error in the
above finding of the Tribunal warranting interference by this Court.
9.As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the
Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.2,00950/- as compensation for the
injuries sustained by the claimant/first respondent, which is not excessive.
There is no error in the award passed by the Tribunal warranting
interference by this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2941 of 2019
10.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed
and sum of Rs.2,00,950/- awarded by the Tribunal as compensation to the
first respondent/claimant along with interest and costs is confirmed. The
appellants 1 and 2 and 5th respondent are directed to deposit the award
amount along with interest and costs, less the amount already deposited, if
any, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.264 of 2011 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, IV Additional District Jude, Bhavani, Erode. On
such deposit, the Tribunal is directed to transfer the amount to the account
of the claimant/first respondent within two weeks thereafter. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
Index:Yes/No 21.03.2023
Internet : Yes/No
gv
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2941 of 2019
A.A.NAKKIRAN, J.
gv
To
1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
(Special Sub- Court No.1, Villupuram).
2. The Section Officer
V.R.Section,
High Court of Madras.
C.M.A.No.2941 of 2019
and
CMP.No.15590 of 2019
21.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
