Dismissed

The National Insurance v. P. Jothi

Madras HC19 Apr 2013CMA/2896/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal by an Insurance Company against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award, the High Court found no discrepancy in the trial court's conclusions regarding negligence, liability, and compensation quantum, thereby dismissing the appeal and confirming the award.

What did the court decide?

The civil miscellaneous appeal was dismissed, the Tribunal's award and decree confirmed, and the amount deposited in favor of claimants released upon withdrawal.

The National Insurance Vs P. Jothi — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 19.04.2013

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN

¶5

C.M.A.No.2896 of 2009

¶6

The National Insurance Company Ltd., T.P.Cell, No.751, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. ..Appellant/2^nd Respondent. vs

¶7

1.P.Jothi 2.P.Prakash (Minor) 3.P.Vijayalakshmi (Minor) 4.P.Ajith Kumar (Minor) (Minors 2 to 4 are represented by Natural guardian and next friend of 1^st respondent of Tmt.P.Jothi) ..Respondents 1 to 4 / Petitioners. 5.Bennet ..5^th Respondent/1^st Respondent.

¶8

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the common award and decree dated 22.10.2007, passed in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.610 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.V, Chengalpattu, Tiruvallur.

¶9

For Appellant : Mr.S.Vadivel

¶10

For Respondents:Mr.V.Manisekaran, [For R.1 to R.4] ex-parte for R5

¶11

JUDGMENT

¶12

On 19.05.2005, at about 09.00 p.m., when the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider on the two wheeler bearing registration No.TN-20R-0654, on the Ambattur main road, the rider of the motorcycle rode it at a high speed and in a negligent manner and suddenly applied brakes due to which the deceased was thrown out on the ground. Consequently, he had sustained injuries and succumbed to it. Hence, the legal heirs of the deceased have levelled the claim against the owner and insurer of the motorcycle.

¶13

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶14

The National Insurance Company had filed a counter statement and resisted the claim petition. It was submitted that the rider of the motorcycle had not committed the accident. Besides, the F.I.R had been registered after a delay of one day. The averments in the claim regarding age, income and occupation of the deceased was not admitted.

¶15

3.On considering the averments of both parties, the Tribunal had framed two issues namely: (1)Whether the petitioners are entitled for the claim?; (2)Whether there was negligence on the part of the respondent's motor cyclist?. On the side of the claimant, two witnesses were examined and nine documents were marked namely: F.I.R; charge sheet; death report; post mortem certificate; death certificate; legal heir certificate; C.T.Scan payment slip for Rs.350/-; transfer certificate; driving licence of Pakkirisamy. On the side of the respondents, no witness was examined and two documents were marked namely: Policy certificate and a letter from Insurance Company.

¶16

4.PW.1, the wife of the deceased has adduced evidence that when her husband and the 1^st respondent herein were travelling on a motorcycle bearing registration No.TN-20R-0654, on the M.T.H.Road, Ambattur on 19.05.2005, at about 09.00 p.m., the 1^st respondent/rider of the motorcycle had ridden the motorcycle negligently and had suddenly applied brake while proceeding at a high speed due to which her husband had fallen down and succumbed to his injuries. She deposed that her husband was aged 32 years and he was earning Rs.7,500/- per month and the other claimants are the minor children of the deceased. PW.2, eyewitness had spoken on the sameline of PW.1, regarding mode of accident.

¶17

5.RW.1, had adduced evidence that the pillion rider of the motorcycle is the owner of the motorcycle and the said motorcycle had not been covered under a valid insurance policy.

¶18

6.On recording the evidence of the witnesses and on perusing the documents marked by both sides, the Trial Court had awarded a sum of Rs.3,49,500/- as compensation, with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim till date of payment of compensation.

¶19

7.Aggrieved by the said award, the above appeal has been filed by the National Insurance Company.

¶20

8.Mr.S.Vadivel, the competent counsel for the appellant submits that the vehicle had not been covered under valid Insurance Policy. Further, the F.I.R had been registered after a delay of one day and that the under section 337 of IPC which is relating to simple

¶21

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶22

injuries. Further, the compensation amount had not been assessed by relying in any authenticated documents regarding income proof.

¶23

9.The very competent counsel Mr.V.Palanisekaran for the claimants submits that the F.I.R had been registered against the offending vehicle driver and the said vehicle had been insured with the Insurance Company. As per the vehicle permit, two persons can travel on the motorcycle. Besides, the Insurance policy was in force at the time of accident. In order to prove the avocation and age of the deceased, authenticated documents were marked. Therefore, the Tribunal had decided all the issues in an appropriate manner.

¶24

10.On considering the factual position of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and on perusing the impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the conclusions arrived at regarding negligence, liability and quantum of compensation. This Court is of the view that the deceased was a driver by profession and he was aged about 34 years and the claimants are four in numbers. Besides, this the F.I.R had been registered against the driver of the motorcycle and the same had been insured with the appellant herein. Therefore, the impugned award is found to be appropriate for execution. As per records, it is seen that the entire compensation amount had been deposited.

¶25

11.Now, all the claimants, including the minor claimants are at liberty to withdraw their apportioned share amount, with proportionate interest thereon, lying in the credit of M.A.C.T.O.P.No.610 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.V, Chengalpattu, Tiruvallur, after filing a memo along with a copy of this order.

¶26

12.In the result, the above appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the award and decree passed in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.610 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.V, Chengalpattu, Tiruvallur, dated 22.10.2007, is confirmed. No costs.

/true copy/

Sub Asst. Registrar.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶31

¶32

1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Additional District Judge,

¶33

Fast Track Court No.V, Chengalpattu, Tiruvallur.

¶34

2.The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.

¶35

1 CC To Mr.S.Vadivel, Advocate SR NO.23265
1 CC To Mr.V.Mani Sekaran, Advocate SR NO.23218
C.M.A.No.2896 of 2009
ug[co]
gp/30.4

¶36

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

The National Insurance v. P. Jothi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The National Insurance v. P. Jothi

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

National Insurance Vs Thoppu Thimmiah

M/S United India Insurance Co. Vs Minor M.Jothi

National Insurance Vs Palanivel

B.Devaki Vs Punniamurthy

The Managing Director Vs Minor Kamalraj

United India Insurance Company Vs M.Krishnan,S/O.Muni Gounder