Madras High Court
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs Periyasamy ...1St on 9 September, 2024
C.M.A.(MD)No.995 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 09.09.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
C.M.A(MD)No. 995 of 2018
and C.M.P(MD)No.10403 of 2018
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
Rep. By its Branch Manager,
Branch Office,
PLA Building, 1st Floor,
Post Box No.172, 12A,
Kovai Road, Karur. ... Appellant/Respondent No.2
Vs.
1.Periyasamy ...1st respondent/Petitioner
2.Ramesh ...2nd Respondent/Respondent No.1
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated
30.01.2009 passed in M.C.O.P.No.309 of 2007on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Karur.
For Appellant : Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian
For R1 : Mr.V.Balaji
For R2 : No appearance
JUDGMENT
The Insurance Company, being aggrieved by the finding on
liability, has filed the instant appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. The 1st respondent filed a claim petition stating that while he
was travelling in a omnivan insured with the appellant, the driver of the
omnivan drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the
wall of a bridge, as a result of which, the omnivan capsized and he
sustained grievous injuries.
3. The owner of the van remained ex parte before the Tribunal.
4. The appellant filed a counter stating that the averments in the
claim petition are false and, in any case, the compensation claimed was
excessive.
5. The 1st respondent examined himself as P.W.1 and the doctor as
P.W.2 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12. The appellant examined R.W.1 and
marked Ex.R.1.
6. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary
evidence, held that the accident was proved and the appellant, being the
insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident, was liable to pay
compensation to the tune of Rs.2,04,800/-.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the policy
involved is a 'act-only' policy, and therefore, there is no coverage for the
occupants, and hence they are not liable to pay compensation and that the
total compensation awarded is excessive.
8. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent, per contra, submitted
that Ex.R.1, the policy, would show that besides the personal accident
coverage for the owner, an additional premium was also paid for
employees in terms of IMT.29, and hence, the appellant is liable to pay
compensation.
9. This Court has given its anxious consideration to the
submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on
record carefully.
10. The points for consideration in the instant appeal are as
follows:
a) Whether the finding of the Tribunal on liability
is justified; and
b) Whether the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is just and reasonable.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11. As regards the 1st point, it is seen that the appellant had not
raised this issue either in the counter or in the submissions before the
Tribunal. That apart, Ex.R.1, the policy document, would show that the
owner of the insured vehicle had paid a premium for employees in terms
of IMT.29 and hence, the appellant would be liable to pay compensation,
since the 1st respondent has established that he was employed under the
Insured. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the finding of the
Tribunal holding the appellant liable to pay compensation is justified and
no interference is called for. The 1st point is answered accordingly.
12. As regards the quantum of compensation, it is seen that except
stating that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, no infirmity
has been specifically pointed out in the award of the Tribunal. A perusal
of the award shows that the 1st respondent had spent Rs.1,27,316/- as per
Ex.P.8, medical bills. He had suffered 30% disability. Considering the
above facts, the award of the Tribunal granting Rs.2,04,800/- as
compensation to the 1st respondent cannot be faulted.
13. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
14. The appellant shall deposit the compensation amount with
accrued interest within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of
a copy of this judgment, less the amount already deposited. On such
deposit, the 1st respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the same by
filing a suitable application before the Tribunal.
09.09.2024
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
CM
To
1.Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Karur.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
CM
Judgment made in
and C.M.P(MD)No.10403 of 2018
09.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
