Madras High Court
National Insurance Company Ltd vs Raymond on 19 September, 2024
C.M.A.(MD) No.397 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 19.09.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
C.M.A.(MD) No.397 of 2021
National Insurance Company Ltd.,
Represented by its Branch Manager,
No.175-A, Great Cotton Road,
Tuticorin. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Raymond,
2.Daweed Raja,
3.Antony Cruz,
4.Subeyar,
5.New India Insuracne Co. Ltd.,
Municipal Complex Building,
Neyyatrikarai Junction,
Neyyatrinkarai Taluk,
Trivandrum. ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, against the judgment and decree dated 14.09.2013 passed in
M.C.O.P.No.75 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal (Sub Court), Kuzhithurai.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No. 1 of 8
C.M.A.(MD) No.397 of 2021
For Appellant : Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan
For Respondents :
for R1 : deceased
for R2, R3 & R4 : No appearance
for R5 : Mr.D.Sivaraman
*****
JUDGMENT
The instant appeal has been filed challenging the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
2. The first respondent filed a claim petition stating that on
14.06.2005, while he was travelling in a mini lorry, a water tank lorry
insured with the appellant came in a rash and negligent manner and
dashed against the vehicle, in which the first respondent was travelling,
from behind, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries.
3. The owner of the lorry/second respondent herein remained ex
parte before the Tribunal.
4. The appellant filed a counter denying the averments in the
claim petition and submitted that in any case, the compensation claimed
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
was excessive.
5. The insurance company of the vehicle, in which the appellant
travelled, was impleaded as the fifth respondent filed a counter stating that
they are not a necessary party and therefore, the claim petition as against
them has to be dismissed.
6. The claimant/first respondent examined himself as P.W.1 and
marked Exs.P1 to P19. The appellant/Insurance Company examined his
employee as R.W.1 and marked the Insurance Policy as Ex.R1.
7. The Tribunal, after taking into consideration the oral and
documentary evidence, held that the accident took place only due to the
rash and negligent driving of the insured vehicle and awarded the total
compensation at Rs.2,67,400/-.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company
submitted that the finding on negligence is not in dispute. However, the
quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, since the
award of the compensation is not based on any evidence on record; and
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the compensation awarded under the head 'Disability' is without any basis
and the award of the compensation under the head 'Pain and sufferings' at
Rs.1,00,000/-, in the absence of any medical evidence, is unwarranted and
hence, prayed for reduction of compensation.
9. From the record, it is seen that the first respondent/claimant is
no more and died, pending the appeal.
10. In view of the order that this Court proposes to pass, notice
to the legal heirs of the first respondent/claimant may not be necessary.
11. The only point for consideration in the instant appeal is
'whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and
reasonable?'
12. The evidence produced by the claimant would show that the
claimant had sustained grievous injuries, which include six fractures.
Unfortunately, the first respondent had not examined any doctor to assess
his disability. The Tribunal, on the basis of the available evidence on
record and on the basis of the injuries suffered by the first respondent, had
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
awarded a sum of Rs.45,000/- under the head 'Loss of income' and
Rs.1,00,000/- under the head 'Pain and sufferings', besides the expenses
for medical treatment of Rs.77,400/- and future medical expenses of
Rs.25,000/-.
13. This Court finds no infirmity in the said award of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
14. The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company is
unable to point out any other infirmity. Therefore, this Court is of the
view that the award of the Tribunal has to be confirmed and hence,
confirmed.
15. The appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
compensation of Rs.2,67,400/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Sixty Seven
Thousand and Four Hundred only), together with interest at the rate of
7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of
realization (excluding the period of dismissal for default if any) and
proportionate costs, after deducting the amount already deposited if any,
within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
order.
16. On such deposit, it is open to the legal heirs of the deceased
first respondent/claimant to file suitable application before the Tribunal to
withdraw the compensation amount equally, less the amount already
withdrawn by the deceased first respondent/claimant, if any.
17. The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company
shall inform about the dismissal of the appeal to the learned counsel for
the deceased first respondent, who appeared before the Tribunal by a
letter through Registered Post.
18. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed.
No costs.
19.09.2024
Index: Yes/ No
NCC: Yes / No
Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order
apd
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To:
1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Court),
Kuzhithurai.
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
19.09.2024
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
