Madras High Court
New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs G.P.Anbumurugan on 11 September, 2024
C.M.A.(MD) No.291 of 2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 11.09.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
C.M.A.(MD) No.291 of 2013
and
M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2013
New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
Through its Branch Manager. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.G.P.Anbumurugan,
2.P.Baskar ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 03.11.2008
passed in MACOP No.139 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal (Additional District & Sessions Judge) (Fast Track
Court-I), Madurai.
For Appellant : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai
For Respondents : Dispensed with
*****
JUDGMENT
The instant appeal has been filed challenging the finding on
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
negligence.
2. The first respondent filed a claim petition stating that while he
was travelling in a two-wheeler as a pillion rider, which was ridden by the
second respondent, a dog crossed the road, as a result of which he lost his
balance fell down and sustained injuries.
3. The second respondent/owner of the vehicle remained ex parte
before the Tribunal.
4. The appellant filed a counter stating that the claimant is not
entitled to the compensation and hence, prayed for setting aside the award
of the Tribunal.
5. Before the Tribunal, the first respondent examined himself as
P.W.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P8. The appellant neither examined any
witnesses nor marked any documents.
6. The Tribunal, after taking into consideration the oral and
documentary evidence, held that the accident took place only due to the
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
negligence of the rider of the two-wheeler and hence, the appellant, as an
insurer of the said two-wheeler, is liable to pay the compensation.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company
submitted that the claimant, being a brother of the owner of the
vehicle/second respondent herein, is not entitled to the compensation as a
third party against the second respondent herein and therefore, the
appellant is not liable to pay the compensation.
8. The notice has not been sent to the first respondent and the
second respondent remained ex parte before the Tribunal. In view of the
orders this Court proposes to pass, notice to the respondents 1 and 2 is
dispensed with.
9. The only point for consideration in the instant appeal is ‘whether
the appellant is liable to pay the compensation?’
10. The first respondent had examined himself as P.W.1 and stated
about the manner of the accident. The version of the first respondent
corroborated the averments in the FIR and the Final Report filed by the
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Police in Ex.P2. The appellant has not produced any contra evidence. In
the light of the evidence on record, it is established that the accident took
place only due to the negligence of the rider of the two-wheeler. It is also
an admitted fact that the policy is a comprehensive policy and therefore,
the appellant, as an insurer, is to be liable to pay the compensation for the
injury caused to the pillion rider. The point is answered accordingly.
11. The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company is
unable to point out any infirmity in the quantum of compensation and
hence, the award of the Tribunal is confirmed.
12. The appellant/Insurance Company shall deposit the
compensation of Rs.35,308/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand Three
Hundred and Eight only) with accrued 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 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.
13. On such deposit, the first respondent/claimant is entitled to
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
withdraw the compensation amount together with proportionate interest
and costs, less the amount already withdrawn, if any, by filing appropriate
application before the Tribunal.
14. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
11.09.2024
Index: Yes/ No
NCC: Yes / No
Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order
apd
To:
1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
(Additional District & Sessions Judge) (Fast Track Court-I),
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
11.09.2024
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
