Partly allowed

M.Gurumurthy v. United India Insurance Co.Ltd.

Kerala HC18 Jan 2013MACA/373/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Motor Accidents Claims Appeal challenged the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's award of 50% contributory negligence. The High Court held the Tribunal's finding on shared negligence unsustainable, set aside the percentage, and allowed the appellant to recover the awarded compensation with interest.

What did the court decide?

The finding of 50% contributory negligence set aside; compensation of Rs. 78,023/- with 8% interest allowed; insurer directed to deposit amount within one month.

M.Gurumurthy Vs United India Insurance Co.Ltd. — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013/28TH POUSHA 1934

¶5

MACA.No. 373 of 2012 ()

¶6

(AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV.1101/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM DATED 9.6.2011)

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/ORIGINAL PETITIONER:

¶8

M.GURUMURTHY AGED 48 YEARS S/O.MUTHUSWAMY,93/14,KALAPURAKKAL LANE THRIPUNITHURA,ERNAKULAM DISTIRCT,PIN 682301.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.K.K.APPU

¶10

SRI.ISAC SANJAY

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/3RD RESPONDENT:

¶12

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.

¶13

BRANCH OFFICE,JOSE TRUST BUILDING,CHITTOOR ROAD KOCHI-11,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶14

R BY ADV. SMT.K.C.BEENA

¶15

R BY SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD

¶16

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

al.

¶18

HARUN-UL-RASHID,J.

¶19

M.A.C.A No. 373 OF 2012

¶20

Dated this the 18^th day of January 2013

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

The claimant in O.P.(MV) No.1101/07 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam is the appellant. The Tribunal passed the Award allowing the claimant to recover a sum of Rs.39,012/- with interest at 8% per annum.

¶23

Petitioner produced Exts.A1 to A12. The respondents did not adduce oral or documentary evidence. Ext.A1 is the copy of the FIR in crime No.2662/06 and A12 is the copy of the charge sheet laid against the driver of the offending vehicle under section 279 and 338 of IPC.

¶24

The claimant sustained injuries in the accident that took place on 25.5.06. The claimant was riding his two wheeler through Thripunithura -Ernakulam Public road from east to west direction, when the offending vehicle proceeding from the opposite direction collided to it. The Tribunal noticed that Ext.A2 charge sheet show that the offending vehicle TATA Ace turned towards right without showing any signal and thereby the accident took place. The place of occurrence was 1.44 meter towards north from the southern end of the tarred

¶25

M.A.C.A.373/2012 2

¶26

portion of the road where the total width of the road is 8.32 meter. From Ext.A3 Inspection report of the offending vehicle, it is seen that the left side cabin and the door of the vehicle was dented. The Tribunal held that, Ext.A3 Inspection Report shows the speed of the two wheeler as it directly rammed against the said portion. The Tribunal found that evidence available would point to the fact that the two wheeler rammed against the left body side of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal further observed that the claimant was on high speed and therefore, he could not stop the vehicle for avoiding collision.

¶27

The offending vehicle was proceeded towards east collided with the two wheeler. Ext.A12 charge sheet also shows that the offending vehicle turned towards right without showing any signal and thereby the accident took place.

¶28

The materials produced and marked as Exts.A1 to A12 would show that the accident occurred, while the claimant was riding the motor bike from east to west direction, that the offending vehicle came from opposite direction, without showing any signal, took a sudden turn towards right and rammed against the vehicle driven by the driver. The materials produced would show that at the time of accident the petitioner was riding the vehicle by keeping his side. The place of occurrence was 1.44 meter towards north from the southern end of tarred portion of the road.

¶29

M.A.C.A.373/2012 3

¶30

The aforesaid facts shows that the accident was due to the negligent act of first respondent, who without showing signal turned his vehicle to right side and came almost on the middle portion on the wrong side. Apart from the documents produced to substantiate his case, no documentary evidence was adduced to prove that, the claimant has also contributed negligence to the accident. The Tribunal without appreciating the evidence properly, fixed 50% contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. The materials produced would show that, the offending vehicle driven by the first respondent, without observing the traffic rules has came into the wrong side of the road and hit against the claimant's vehicle.

¶31

The appellant had contended that the Tribunal went wrong in not accepting Ext.A8 and A12 documents produced by the petitioner; that the petitioner was drawing salary of Rs.21,000/- per month; that the Tribunal failed to taking into consideration the monthly salary drawn by the claimant and wrongly fixed Rs.10450/- as his salary. It is contended that previous years tax return would shows that the petitioner had drawn salary at Rs. 17,000/- per month. The Tribunal after considering the injuries sustained as per Ext.A4 wound certificate and considering the fact that he was treated as inpatient for ten days in the VKM hospital, Rs.78023/- is awarded as total compensation. The claimant was allowed to

¶32

M.A.C.A.373/2012 4

¶33

withdraw the amount. The appellant limited his claim to Rs.1,00,000/-. This Court find that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and no interference is called for. This Court finds that the finding of the Tribunal fixing contributory negligence at 50% on the part of the claimant is found to be unsustainable.

¶34

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The finding that the claimant also had contributed negligence and fixing the contributed negligence at 50% is set aside. The Award passed by the Tribunal is modified. The appellant is allowed to recover Rs. 78023/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till realisation from the respondents 1 to 3 in O.P. (M.V) No.1101/2007, who are jointly and severally liable for compensation. The Insurance Company shall deposit the amount within one month in the name of the claimant before the Tribunal.

¶35

Sd/- HARUN-UL-RASHID JUDGE

¶36

al/-

M.Gurumurthy v. United India Insurance Co.Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Gurumurthy v. United India Insurance Co.Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Joint Director, Esi Corporation, Vs M/S.Eastern Rug Mills

P.K.Moideenkunhi Vs Abdul Rahiman

Nishi Moideen Vs Haridas & Ors.

The Regional Director, Esi Corporation Vs M/S.Rohini Plasto Pack

The Regional Director, Esi Corpn. Vs Rekha Nandagopal

Abdul Salam Vs the Secretary, Kannur Kunicipality