Madras High Court
M/S.The National Insurance ... vs Gomathi on 12 September, 2023
C.M.A.No.1906 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12.09.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
C.M.A.No.1906 of 2023
and C.M.P.No.18517 of 2023
M/s.The National Insurance Company Limited,
Branch Office, No.4192, East Main Road,
Pudukottai-622 001. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Gomathi
2.Deepa
3.Vidya
4.Kesammal
5.Ramachandran
6.Krishnamoorthy ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree passed in
M.A.C.T.O.P.No.62 of 2016 dated 25.04.2017 on the file of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court No.3, Dharapuram,
Tiruppur District.
For Appellant : Ms.N.B.Surekha
For Respondents : Ms.R.Renuka Devi for R1 to R4
for Mr.N.Manoharan
R5 & R6 – Exparte
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
C.M.A.No.1906 of 2023
JUDGMENT
The appeal has been filed challenging the findings of the Tribunal
with regard to the negligence and quantum of compensation.
2.The respondents 1 to 4 herein filed a claim petition stating that on
17.04.2015 at about 05.00 P.M., while the deceased was travelling in his
bike, the lorry insured with the appellant came in a rash and negligent
manner, hit the vehicle in which the deceased travelled, as a result of which,
the deceased sustained fatal injuries.
3.The respondents 5 & 6 herein, being the driver and owner of the
lorry remained exparte before the Tribunal.
4.The appellant/third respondent in the claim petition resisted the
claim stating that the deceased had hit the stationary lorry; that the accident
took place only due to the negligence of the deceased; and that in any case,
the claim made by the respondents/claimants, is excessive and prayed for
dismissal of the claim petition.
5.Before the Tribunal, the first respondent was examined as P.W.1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1906 of 2023
The respondents examined two others witnesses as P.W.2 and P.W.3. and
marked 16 documents as Exhibits P.1 to P16. On the side of the
respondents, one Mr.Chandrasekaran was examined as R.W.1 and 2
documents were marked as Exhibits R1 and R2.
6.The Trial Court after considering the evidence on record held that
the accident took place only due to the negligence of the offending vehicle
insured with the appellant and directed the appellant to pay a total
compensation of Rs.10,95,000/- to the respondents/claimants.
7.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the evidence
adduced on behalf of the appellant viz, the Final Report and Rough Sketch
of the Investigating Officer would show that the accident did not take place
in the manner alleged by the respondents/claimants. The Final Report
would show that the deceased had hit the stationary lorry which was parked
on a bridge. The learned counsel submitted that in the light of the said
evidence, the Tribunal ought to have held that the deceased was the
tortfeasor and in any event, ought to have fixed atleast contributory
negligence on the deceased.
8.The learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4/claimants per contra
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1906 of 2023
submitted that the award of compensation by the Tribunal is meagre. The
Tribunal has not taken into consideration the future prospects and not
awarded compensation under the conventional head, 'loss of estate'. Thus,
the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4/claimants submitted that even
assuming that the deceased had contributed to the accident in view of
meagre compensation, no interference is called for and prayed for dismissal
of the appeal.
9.On perusal of the evidence on records, it is seen that though it is the
case of the appellant that the accident took place only due to the negligence
of the deceased, the driver of the offending vehicle was not examined
before the Tribunal. The criminal case records would have relevance if the
driver of the offending vehicle, had been examined. The Tribunal after
assessing the evidence on record viz., the evidence of P.W.2 and other
documentary evidence, had fixed the liability entirely on the appellant,
being the insurer of the offending vehicle. Even assuming that the deceased
had contributed to the accident, since the Tribunal had awarded a
compensation of Rs.10,95,000/- without taking into consideration future
prospects, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in the facts and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1906 of 2023
circumstances is just and reasonable. Hence, no interference is called for.
10.The appellant is directed to deposit the compensation amount
within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment. On such deposit, the respondents 1 to 4/claimants are permitted
to withdraw the same, as per the apportionment fixed by the Tribunal.
11.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
12.09.2023
Index:Yes/No
Speaking Order :Yes/No
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
pam/gvn
To
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Additional District Court No.3,
Dharapuram,
Tiruppur District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1906 of 2023
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
gvn
C.M.A.No.1906 of 2023
12.09.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
