The Branch Manager vs Seetha Lakshmi
2023 Latest Caselaw 12973 Mad

                                                                         C.M.A. No. 2232 of 2023

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                               DATED: 22.09.2023

                                                    CORAM :

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

                                              C.M.A.No.2232 of 2023
                                                       and
                                              C.M.P.No.21378 of 2023

                  The Branch Manager,
                  Reliance General Insurance Company Limited,
                  'Kanagu Towers', 2nd Floor, Thillai Nagar main road,
                  Trichy.                                                        ... Appellants

                                                          Vs.

                  1.Seetha Lakshmi
                  2.Thangarasu
                  3.Seethalakshmi
                  4.Rajeswari
                  5.Rajesh Babu                                                ... Respondents


                  Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor

                  Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 16.07.2019 made

                  in M.C.O.P. No.802 of 2015 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

                  Principal District Court, Perambalur.




                  1/6


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                               C.M.A. No. 2232 of 2023

                                          For Appellant    : Ms. C. Bhuvanasundari



                                                       JUDGMENT

The above appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company

challenging the award of the Tribunal granting compensation to the

respondents 1 to 4 herein.

2. The respondents 1 to 4 filed claim petition stating that on 08.07.2015

at about 4.30 pm, while the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider on the

extreme left side of the road, a lorry belonging to the 5th respondent herein

and insured with the appellant came in the opposite direction in a rash and

negligent manner and dashed against the deceased, as a result of which the

deceased sustained fatal injuries.

3. The fifth respondent herein remained ex parte before the Tribunal.

4. The appellant denied the manner of accident in a counter and stated

that in any case, the compensation claimed by the Tribunal was excessive.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A. No. 2232 of 2023

5. The respondents 1 to 4 examined PW.1 and PW.2 and marked Ex.P1

to Ex.P5. The appellant examined RW.1 and marked Ex.X1 to Ex.X3.

6. The Tribunal, after taking into consideration the oral and

documentary evidence, held that the accident took place due to the negligence

of the 5th respondent and directed the appellant, being the insurer to pay a

compensation of Rs.18,84,400/- to the respondents 1 to 4.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal

ought to have seen that the accident did not take place due to the negligence

of the insured vehicle; and that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is

excessive in as much as instead of deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses,

the Tribunal had deducted 1/4th in computing compensation.

8. It is seen from the award of the Tribunal that the respondents 1 to 4

had examined eye witness to the accident. He had deposed that the accident

took place only due to the negligence of the driver of the insured vehicle.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A. No. 2232 of 2023

The appellant had not let in any evidence to rebut the evidence let in on the

side of respondents 1 to 4. The FIR was also registered against the driver of

the offending vehicle. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the award of

the Tribunal fixing the negligence on the driver of the offending vehicle

insured with the appellant, is justified and no interference is called for.

9. As regards compensation, the only ground raised by the appellant is

that instead of 1/3rd deduction towards personal expenses, the Tribunal had

deducted 1/4th. This Court finds that the claimants are 4 in number including

an unmarried younger sister of the deceased. Therefore, all the 4 were

considered as dependants by the Tribunal and 1/4th has been deducted

towards personal expenses of the deceased. There is no infirmity in this

finding also.

10. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the view that the award of

the Tribunal is just and reasonable and hence, it is confirmed. The appeal is

therefore, liable to be dismissed.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A. No. 2232 of 2023

11. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed

confirming the award passed by the Tribunal. Consequently, connected

miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. The appellant / Insurance

Company is directed to deposit the award amount fixed by the Tribunal,

within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Judgment

if not deposited earlied. On such deposit, the respondents 1 to 4 is permitted

to withdraw the award amount along with proportionate interest and costs,

less the amount if any, already withdrawn, on the basis of apportionment

fixed by the Tribunal.

22.09.2023

Index: Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes / No AT

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A. No. 2232 of 2023

SUNDER MOHAN, J.

AT

To

1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Court, Perambalur.

2.The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.

C.M.A.No.2232 of 2023 and C.M.P.No.21378 of 2023

22.09.2023

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