Madras High Court
The United India Insurance Company Ltd vs Karalam ... 1St on 24 November, 2023
C.M.A.(MD).No.466 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 24.11.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
CMA(MD) No.466 of 2020
and CMP(MD) No.5247 of 2020
and Cross Objection (MD) No.24 of 2021
CMA(MD) No.466 of 2020
The United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
Through its Manager (HUB)
D.No.7-A West Veli Street,
Madurai 1 ...appellant/
respondent No.2
Vs.
1.Karalam ... 1st respondent/
petitioner
2.A.Yesuvadiyan ... Respondents 2 /
1st respondent
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree order dated
25.02.2019 in MCOP No.1366 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court, Madurai.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.466 of 2020
For Appellant : Mr.C.Karthick
For Respondents : Mr.S.M.Mohan Gandhi for R1
Mr.Veilmuthu for R2
Cross Objection No.24/2021
Karalam ...Cross objector/
respondent No.1
/claimant
Vs.
1.A.Yesuvadiyan ... 1st respondent/
2nd respondent
2.The United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
Through its Manager (HUB)
D.No.7-A West Veli Street,
Madurai 1 ... Respondents 2 /
Appellant
PRAYER: Cross Objection is filed under Order 41 Rule 22 of Code of
Civil Procedure r/w 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment
and decree order dated 25.02.2019 in MCOP No.1366 of 2014 on the file
of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court, Madurai.
For Appellant : Mr.S.M.Mohan Gandhi
For Respondents : Mr.C.Karthick for R2
Mr.Veilmuthu for R1
2/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.466 of 2020
JUDGMENT
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the award
and decree dated 25.02.2018 made in MCOP No.1366 of 2014 by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Judge, Madurai.
2.Challenging the award of the tribunal on the ground of
negligence and quantum of compensation, the insurance company is
before this Court with this appeal.
3.The facts of the case in nutshell are as follows:
The claimant/first respondent herein met with an accident that
had occurred on 10.06.2011. On the date of accident, when he had driven
his two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN64 P 8662, a mini lorry,
bearing registration No.TN-74-V-2161 insured with the 2nd respondent
came in a rash and negligent manner, hit the two wheeler driven by the
claimant/first respondent. In the said accident, the claimant suffered head
injuries and as a result of which, shas become vegetative state lying in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
bed. At the time of accident, the claimant was working as a machine
operator in the Sundaram Fasteners Limited and because of his medical
unfitness, he was given voluntary retirement. For the injuries sustained,
he filed a claim petition in MCOP No.1366/2014 claiming compensation
of Rs.54,00,000/-.
4. Before the tribunal, the wife of the claimant, who is looking
after the claimant, examined herself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P26
and the disability certificate issued by the medical board is marked as
Ex.C1. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.R1 to
Ex.R4 were marked.
5. The Tribunal, considering the oral and documentary evidence
adduced by both sides, came to the conclusion that the accident had
occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle,
which is insured with the appellant/insurance company and accordingly
held that the offending vehicle and the insurance company are jointly and
severally liable to pay the compensation. On the point of quantum of
compensation, the tribunal, while relying upon Ex.C1 – disability
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
certificate assessing the disability at 75%, has taken into consideration
the oral evidence of P.W.1 to the effect that the injured is in a vegetative
state and has assessed the disability at 100% and accordingly, awarded
the compensation at Rs.43,27,000/- with 7.5% interest from the date of
petition till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the liability fixed and
award of compensation, the insurance company is before this Court with
this appeal.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the
learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 and perused the materials
available on record.
7. It is to be noted that the claimant has filed cross objection for
enhancement on various heads.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant insurance company
would contend that at the time of accident, the injured claimant was 51
years and left with seven years of service and due to the medical
condition, he has retired voluntarily. He would state that since the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
injured was not wearing the helmet at the time of accident, contributory
negligence has to be fixed. We have perused the counter statement filed
by the insurance company before the tribunal. It is seen that in the said
counter statement, no such plea has been taken by the insurance company
and further more, as per Ex.P6 - charge sheet, there is no resemblances of
wearing helmet by the injured and hence, the ground that has been raised
now by the appellant insurance company has been negatived.
9. On the point of quantum of compensation, taking into
consideration the fact that even as per the medical records, the injured
claimant is in a vegetative state and suffered 100% functional disability
and hence, 100% disability was fixed by the tribunal and accordingly, by
applying Rajkumar's case, the quantum of compensation is justified.
Considering the facts of the case, we find that the computation of
compensation awarded by the tribunal is in accordance with the law laid
down by the Supreme Court and in that view of the matter, we do not find
any infirmity or illegality in the quantum of compensation awarded by the
tribunal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed.
Consequently the Cross objection is also dismissed. It is represented that
the entire award amount has been deposited. The first
respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire award amount
along with accrued interest. No costs. Consequently connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
(T.K.R.,J.) (P.B.B.,J.)
24.11.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
RR
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Special Sub Court, Madurai
2.The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN,J.
AND
P.B.BALAJI, J.
RR
and Cross Objection no.24 of 2021
24.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
