Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Kumar Kulaiappan
2023 Latest Caselaw 14699 Mad

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 14699 Mad
Judgement Date : 23 November, 2023

Madras High Court

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Kumar Kulaiappan on 23 November, 2023

Author: N.Seshasayee

Bench: N.Seshasayee

                                                                                 C.M.A.No.2672 of 2023

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                     DATED : 23.11.2023

                                          CORAM : JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE

                                                 C.M.A.No.2672 of 2023
                                               and CMP.No.24828 of 2023


                     Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
                     126, KPS Complex, III Floor
                     Kovai Road, Karur
                     Erode - 639 002.                     ..... Appellant / 3rd Respondent


                                                                 Vs


                     1.Kumar Kulaiappan
                     2.Pasupathi Kamalakannan
                     3.Ashok Kumar                           ... Respondents / Petitioner,
                                                                                 Respondents 1,2

                     Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
                     Vehicles Act, 1988 praying to set aside the decree and judgment dated
                     28.11.2022 passed in M.C.O.P.No.589 of 2019 by the Motor Accident
                     Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court at Coimbatore.


                                    For Petitioner      : Ms.C.Bhuvanasundari

                                    For Respondent      : Mr.M.Lokesh for R1




                    1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                     C.M.A.No.2672 of 2023



                                                           JUDGMENT

In a road accident that took place on 13.12.2018, a certain Kumar

Kulaiappan suffered head injuries when a motorcycle that he was riding was

knocked down by another motorcycle bearing No.TN70 Y 1112 belonging to

the second respondent and insured with the appellant. As indicated, Kumar

Kulaiappan suffered head injuries and he was hospitalised for 12 days. The

medical board vide Ext.C1 has reckoned the percentage of disability at 60%.

The Tribunal quantified the compensation payable for permanent disability at

Rs.5,000/- for every percentage of disability. In all, it awarded

Rs.15,75,697/-, of which, more than nearly 2/3rd component constitute

medical expenses of Rs.10,34,697/-. The break-up of the award is as below :

Sl.No. Heads of compensation Award of the Tribunal (Rs.) 1 Pain and Sufferings 80,000/-

2 Loss of Amenities 50,000/-

3 Loss of Earnings 36,000/-

4 Medical Bills 10,34,697/-

5 Permanent Disability 3,00,000/-

6 Attendant Charges 30,000/-

7 Nourishment Expenses 30,000/-

8 Transportation Expenses 10,000/-

9 Loss to clothing 5,000/-

Total : 15,75,697/-

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

2. Aggrieved by the approach of the Tribunal, the insurance company has

preferred this appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that (a)

the Tribunal had overlooked the fact that the victim did not possess a valid

and effective driving licence; and (b) that the victim was not wearing helmet,

and consequently Tribunal did not apportion the negligence evenly as

between the rider of the offending vehicle and the claimant.

3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the

victim indeed was wearing a helmet, but that was thrown away at the point of

accident. Secondly, merely because someone does not possess a driving

licence, that does not give licence to the rider or driver of any other

motorcycle to knock him off.

4. This Court is impressed with the response of the counsel for the first

respondent. Merely because a person does not bear a licence which even

though is not approved in law, does not automatically be construed as a

contributory factor for accident, unless it is shown that such rider of the

motorcycle was also in negligence. So far as the issue regarding helmet is

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

concerned, there was some heated arguments between both the counsel, but at

the end of the day, this Court chooses to grant benefit to the claimant.

5.To conclude, this Court does not find any merit or material as warranting

interference with the award of the Tribunal. This Court is informed that the

insurance company had deposited only Rs.25,000/-. The appellant /

insurance company is now required to deposit the differential sum with

interest at the rate of 7.5% within a period of six weeks from today. Once

the amount is deposited, the claimant is free to withdraw the same. No costs.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

23.11.2023

Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order ds

To: