Madras High Court
Reliance General Insurance Company ... vs Murugan on 5 February, 2025
CMA.No.312 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated :05.02.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
CMA No.312 of 2025
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited
Swarnapuri, Fairlands,
Salem District ... Appellant
Vs.
1. Murugan
2.Anush Deekonda ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act 1988, pleased to set aside the judgment and decree dated
01.09.2023 passed in MCOP.No.811 of 2022 on the file of Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal), Special District Judge at Salem.
For appellant : Mr.P.Suresh Srinivasan
For Respondents : M/s.B.Logendiran for R2
JUDGMENT
Challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal awarding compensation of Rs.19,70,000/- to the injured
claimant, the Insurance company has come before this court by way of
this appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. According to the first respondent/claimant, on 08.10.2019 at
about 1.30 P.M, when he was riding his two wheeler bearing
registration No.TN 54-D-0857 in Attur By-pass road near junction of
Pudupalayam service road on the left side of the road, a car bearing
registration No.KA 53-ME-7450 belonging to the second respondent
was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and hit against
the victim. As a result of the accident, the victim suffered grievous
injuries all over the body and his right leg was fully amputated. It is
claimed by the claimant that at the time of accident, he was aged about
39 years and he was employed as a load man, earning a sum of
Rs.20,000/- per month. The claim was laid seeking a compensation of
Rs.55,00,000/-.
3. The appellant/ Insurance company resisted the claim petition
by filing a counter affidavit stating that the driver of the insured vehicle
had no driving license and hence, the insurance company was not liable
to pay the compensation amount. The Insurance company denied the
avocation and income of the injured person.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. Before the Tribunal, the injured was examined as PW1 and
nine documents were marked on the side of the claimant as Exhibits P1
to P9. On behalf of the appellant/Insurance company, no witness was
examined and no document was marked.
5.The Tribunal, based on the evidence available on record, came
to the conclusion that the driver of the second respondent's car drove
the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hence, the accident had
taken place. Though the disability certificate issued by the Medical
Board mentions the disability at 85%, the Tribunal having regard to the
avocation of the injured fixed the disability at 100% and awarded a sum
of Rs.19,70,000/- as compensation. Aggrieved by the same, the
Insurance company has come before this court by way of this appeal.
6. The learned counsel for the Appellant/ Insurance Company
submitted that the Tribunal erred in fixing negligence on the part of the
driver of the insured vehicle when no independent eyewitness was
examined on the side of the claimant. The learned counsel further
submitted that the medical board opined that the injured suffered only
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
85% disability. The Tribunal fixed disability at 100% without any basis.
Therefore, he sought for setting aside the award passed by the Tribunal.
7. The learned counsel for the first respondent/claimant, by
taking this Court to the order passed by the Tribunal, contended that
based on proper appreciation of evidence available on record, the
Tribunal has awarded just compensation and the same need not be
interfered with.
8. In order to prove the manner of accident, the claimant was
examined as PW1. He clearly deposed about the rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the car owned by the second respondent. The
evidence of PW1 is very well corroborated by the contents of FIR,
which is marked as Exhibit P1. In order to prove that the accident had
taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the injured, the
respondents had not chosen to examine the driver of the offending car.
Therefore, based on the evidence of PW1 and contents of the FIR, the
Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that negligence is on the part of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the driver of the car owned by the second respondent.
9. Though in the counter affidavit the appellant/Insurance
company raised a point that driver of the car did not possess a valid
driving license, the appellant has not taken any steps to prove the same
by issuing notice to the concerned RTO office. As far as the percentage
of the disability is concerned, the Medical Board has given an opinion
that injured claimant suffered disability of 85% under Exhibit P3. It is
not in dispute that the right leg of the claimant was fully amputated. He
is a load man by profession. In that case, he may not be in a position to
perform his duty as load man. The amputation suffered by the claimant
will certainly interfere with the avocation of the injured. Therefore, the
Tribunal is justified in fixing disability at 100%.
10. The accident had taken place in the year 2019. The Tribunal
fixed only Rs.10,000/- as notional monthly income, in view of the fact
that the claimant failed to produce any evidence to prove the income or
avocation. This Court, taking into consideration the date of accident
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and cost of living, feels the notional income of Rs.10,000/- fixed by the
Tribunal is very conservative estimate. However, the claimant is
satisfied with the same and not challenged the quantum. Hence, the said
finding is confirmed. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere
with the award passed by the Tribunal and accordingly, the Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
05.02.2025
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
nr
To
1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Special District Judge, Salem
2. The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
nr
05.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
