Madras High Court
M/S. National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Arputhasamy on 13 October, 2024
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 13.10.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
C.M.A.Nos.105 & 106 of 2017
M/s. National Insurance co. ltd.,
Having its office at
First Floor,
Karthikeya Complex,
403 – B – 10, Mettur Main Road,
Bhavani. ... Appellants in both the appeals
Vs
1. Arputhasamy
2. Devendran
3. S.Kumar
4. The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,
Division – II,
Having Office at
Chennimalai Road,
Erode.
5. Sri Amirtha Coir Production and Exports,
No.104/2, Mysore Road,
Bharathi Nagar,
Thalawadi, Sathyamangalam.
... Respondents in CMA.No.105 of 2017
1. Gomathi
2. Devendran
3. S.Kumar
4. The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,
Division – II,
Having Office at
Chennimalai Road,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Erode.
2
5. Sri Amirtha Coir Production and Exports,
No.104/2, Mysore Road,
Bharathi Nagar,
Thalawadi, Sathyamangalam.
... Respondents in CMA.No.106 of 2017
Common Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed against the Judgment
and decree dated 18.02.2015 in MCOP Nos.129 & 144 of 2013 passed by
the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Subordinate Judge, Perundurai.
For appellant : Mr.J.Chandran in both the appeal
For respondent : Mr.K.J.Sivakumar R4 in both the appeals
RR1,2,5 – No appearance
R3 - NRN
COMMON JUDGMENT
The appeals have been filed by the Insurance company seeking
quantum of compensation in the Judgment and decree dated 18.02.2015 in
MCOP Nos.129 & 144 of 2013 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal/Subordinate Judge, Perundurai.
2. Since the issue involved in the matters are one and the same, the
same are disposed of by way of this common order.
3. It is the case of the claimants that on 08.07.2012, at about 2.30 pm.
When the claimants/first respondent herein in both the cases, were travelling
in separate two wheelers, at that time, a bus bearing registration No.TN 33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
N 2584 driven by its driver and a van driven by its driver, which was
insured with the appellant, came in opposite direction, in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed against the two wheeler, due to which, the
claimants sustained grievous multiple injuries and admitted in Hospital and
taken treatment and one Balakrishnan, who is the husband of the claimant,
died, have filed separate claim petitions before the Tribunal claiming
compensation.
3. In order to prove their claim, the claimants have examined 4
witnesses viz., P.W.1 to P.W.4 and marked 29 documents viz., Ex.P1 to
Ex.P29. On the side of the insurance company, three witnesses were
examined and four documents were adduced. After analyzing the evidences,
the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.36,786/- and Rs.1,59,391/- to the
claimants as compensation for injuries payable by the Insurance Company
and owner of the bus and owner of the van.
4. Questioning the negligence and liability, the appellant/insurance
company has come forward with these appeals before this Court.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submitted
that the accident had happened due to rash and negligent driving of the rider
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of the two wheeler. The driver of the bus was not responsible for the
accident and therefore, the appellant, who is the insurer of the bus, was not
liable to compensate the claimant. The Tribunal, considering the fact that
while the Mahindra Van bearing Reg. No.TN 36 T 6226 proceeding from
west to east on the left hand side, the bus which was came from behind on
the same direction, while driving the bus in a high speed recklessly
endangering human life and hit the back side of the van, is consequence of
impact by the bus, the van hit the motor cycle, causing the death of driver
Balakrishnan and also against the claimants, who is the rider and pillion
rider of the motor cycle, ought to have held, but for the rash and negligent
driving of the Transport Corporation bus, the accident would not have
occurred at all. Further, the driver of the Mahindra van is not having valid
driving license at the time of the accident and hence, the appellant is not
liable to pay compensation. Therefore, this Court may interfere with the
award and set aside the same.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent
submitted that the driver of the Mahindra van was driving the van in a rash
and negligent manner and hit against the two wheeler. On the basis of the
evidence adduced, the Tribunal has awarded compensation, which is just
and fair and the same does not warrant any interference.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the
respondents and also perused the materials available on record before this
Court.
8. The factum of the accident is not disputed by the parties and the
appeals have been filed on the ground of negligence and liability. On
perusal of the award, it is found that the accident had occurred on
08.07.2012, the first respondent in CMA.No.105 of 2017 was driving his
motor cycle and one deceased Balakrishnan was driving his motor cycle
along with his wife Gomathi, who is the first respondent in CMA.No.106 of
2017. The government bus which was driven by its driver/second
respondent and the van which was driven by its driver/third respondent,
were coming from the opposite side. As per the evidence of PW1 & PW2,
who are the eyewitness of the accident, the Mahendra Van overtook the bus
from the left side. The transport corporation bus also not reduced its speed.
Both the vehicle. Without decreasing the speed, hit the two wheelers.
Therefore, negligence is on the part of the both the drivers of the bus and
mahindra van. Therefore, the Tribunal has fixed negligence on the part of
the driver of the van and bus. Hence, the appellant, who is its insurer, is
liable to pay compensation. The finding of the Tribunal is perfectly in order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and does not require any interference.
9. In view of the above, this Court do not find any error in the award
passed by the Tribunal. There is no merit in the appeal.
10. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed and
the award passed by the Tribunal is confirmed. The appellant insurance
company is directed to deposit the entire amount awarded by the Tribunal
along with interest at 7.5%, less the amount already deposited if any, within
a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
On such deposit being made, the claimants shall withdraw the compensation
as awarded by the Tribunal along with interest and costs, less the amount,
if any, already withdrawn, by filing an appropriate application before the
Court concerned. No costs.
13.10.2023
Index : Yes/no
Internet : Yes/no
To
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Subordinate Judge, Perundurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.DHANDAPANI.,J.
rli
C.M.A.Nos.105 & 106 of 2017
13.10.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
