Madras High Court
The Branch Manager vs P.Mallika on 4 October, 2024
C.M.A.(MD) No.425 of 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 04.10.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
C.M.A.(MD) No.425 of 2016
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.5712 of 2016
The Branch Manager,
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
III Floor, Bangur Dharmasala Building,
6-A, West veli street,
Madurai. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.P.Mallika,
2.Minor.Priya,
(Represented by her mother/natural guardian first respondent)
3.K.Alagar,
4.Lakshmi.
5.A.Jainul Aslam. ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicle Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 11.03.2016
passed in M.C.O.P.No.287 of 2014, on the file of the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal cum Special District Court, Madurai.
For Appellant : Mr.C.Jawahar Ravindran
For Respondents : No appearance
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No. 1 of 7
C.M.A.(MD) No.425 of 2016
*****
JUDGMENT
The instant appeal has been filed by the insurance company
challenging the finding on liability.
2. The respondents 1 to 4 filed a claim petition stating that the
deceased was working as a Scavenger in a Jamath; that when he travelled
in a trailer bearing registration No.TN 65 Q 9956 attached to a tractor
bearing registration No.TN 65 Q 9951 insured with the appellant, the
driver of the tractor drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, as a
result of which the deceased fell down from the trailer and the tractor had
run over him, which resulted in his death.
3. The owner of the trailer remained ex parte before the Tribunal.
4. The appellant, the insurer of the tractor filed a counter stating that
the tractor was a goods vehicle and the deceased was travelling in the
mudguard of the tractor and not on the trailer; that therefore, he was not
entitled to any compensation; and that the driver of the tractor did not
have a valid licence and in any case, they are not liable to pay
compensation.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. Before the Tribunal, the claimants examined P.W.1 to P.W.3 and
marked Exs.P1 to P7. The appellant examined R.W.1 and marked Exs.R1
to R6.
6. The Tribunal, after taking into consideration the oral and
documentary evidence, held that the accident took place in the manner
alleged in the claim petition, namely, that the deceased fell down from the
trailer and was run over by the tractor; and therefore, the appellant is
liable to pay compensation.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company
submitted that the accident did not take place in the manner alleged in the
claim petition; and that the deceased was travelling in the mudguard of the
tractor and hence, they are not liable to pay any compensation.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant fairly submitted that they
are not aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9. The only question in the instant appeal is ‘whether the appellant
is liable to pay compensation?’
10. The FIR lodged by the father of the deceased states that the
deceased was travelling in the trailer and because of the negligent driving
of the tractor driver, he fell down from the trailer and was run over by the
tractor.
11. P.W.2, who was an eyewitness, had clearly deposed that the
deceased, while travelling in the trailer, fell down from the trailer and was
run over by the tractor. R.W.1 examined on the side of the appellant/
insurance company official was not an eyewitness to the occurrence. The
appellant had not let in any contra evidence to the evidence let in on the
side of the claimants/respondents 1 to 4 to prove the manner of the
accident. In the light of the evidence adduced on the side of the claimants,
the Tribunal was right in holding that the accident took place in the
manner averred by the claimants. The appellant, being the insurer of the
tractor, is therefore liable to pay compensation.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
12. Since the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
reasonable, no interference is called for as regards quantum. Therefore,
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is liable to be confirmed.
13. The appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
award amount of Rs.8,10,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs and Ten Thousand
only), together with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of the claim
petition till the date of realization (excluding the period of dismissal for
default if any) and proportionate costs, less the amount already deposited,
if any, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order.
14. On such deposit, the respondents 1 to 4/claimants are permitted
to withdraw their share amount as per the apportionment fixed by the
Tribunal with interest and costs, less the amount already withdrawn, if
any, by filing appropriate application before the Tribunal.
15. The second respondent was a minor when the claim petition was
filed in the year 2014. She would have attained majority now. Hence, she
is directed to file appropriate application for recording herself as major
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and withdraw her share.
16. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
04.10.2024
Index: Yes/ No
NCC: Yes / No
Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order
apd
To:
1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Special District Court,
Madurai.
2.The Record Keeper,
V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
apd
04.10.2024
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
