Dismissed

The Branch Manager v. Mangammal

Madras HC8 Jul 2013CMA/3711/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of an appeal by an insurer against a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award. The insurer challenged liability for an unauthorized passenger in a goods vehicle. The court confirmed the award, held the insurer liable, and directed deposit of the compensation amount.

What did the court decide?

Direct the appellant to deposit the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal within four weeks. Confirm the Tribunal's award and decree.

The Branch Manager Vs Mangammal — Insurance | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 08.07.2013

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN

¶5

C.M.A.No.3711 of 2008 &

¶6

M.P.No.1 of 2008

¶7

The Branch Manger, M/s.United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch at Mettur Dam. ... Appellant / 2nd Respondent Vs. 1.Mangammal 2.Govindammal 3.Minor Ambiga (Minor rep. by mother & NF first respondent) all are residing at Karagur Village, Sappanipatti Post, Krishnagiri Taluk, Dharmapuri District. 4.K.S.Lakshmiammal ... Respondents / Petitioners 1 to 3 and I Respondent (4th respondent ex parte in lower Court and hence notice may be dispensed with)

¶8

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and decree in M.C.O.P.No.1341 of 2003, dated 29.10.2007, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Krishnagiri.

¶9

For Appellant : Mr.N.Vijayaraghavan For Respondents : NA R-1 to R-3 not ready notice R-4 (Exparte)

¶10

The appellant / second respondent has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.1341 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Krishnagiri.

¶11

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

¶12

The short facts of the case are as follows:The petitioners, who are the wife, mother and minor daughter of the deceased Periasamy have filed the claim in M.C.O.P.No.1341 of 2003, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the respondents for the death of the said Periasamy in a motor vehicle accident. It was submitted that on 28.08.1998, when the deceased Periasamy, along with others, was travelling as a coolie in the lorry bearing registration No.TN-45-B3965 from Dharmapuri to Chennai and at about 3.30 a.m., when the vehicle was nearing Solur Village, the driver of the lorry drove it in a rash and negligent manner, due to which, the lorry capsized. As a result, the (deceased) sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. At the time of accident, the deceased was earning Rs.4,500/per month through his agricultural work. Hence, the petitioners have filed the claim against the respondents, who are the owner and insurer of the lorry.

¶13

The second respondent, in his counter has submitted that the petitioners have already filed the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.634 of 1999 before the Subordinate Court, Dharmapuri and hence, this petition is liable to be dismissed in limini. It was submitted that the deceased had travelled as unauthorized person and hence, this respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. The averments in the claim regarding age, income and occupation of the deceased was also not admitted. It was submitted that the claim was excessive.

¶14

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal had framed three issues for consideration in the case, viz.,

¶15

"(i) Whether the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent's vehicle, which is insured with the second respondent?

¶16

(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to get the amount as claimed in the petition from the respondents 1 and 2?

¶17

(iii) To what any other relief?"

¶18

On the petitioners side, two witnesses were examined and 4 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P4, viz., Ex.P1-copy of F.I.R., Ex.P2-copy of postmortem report, Ex.P3-copy of insurance policy, Ex.P4-certified copy of decree in M.C.O.P.No.634 of 1999, on the file of Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri. On the respondents side, no one was examined and the copy of claim petition was marked as Ex.R1.

¶19

P.W.1, the first petitioner had adduced evidence which is corroborative of the statements made in the claim regarding manner of accident and in support of her evidence, she had marked https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶20

Exs.P1 to P4. P.W.2, Subramani, the eyewitness of the accident had adduced evidence that he had also travelled in the first respondent's lorry, as a coolie and that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the first respondent's lorry.

¶21

The Tribunal, on scrutiny of evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 observed that the deceased had travelled as an unauthorized passenger in the first respondent's lorry and that he had gone to Madras in the first respondent's lorry for purpose of harvesting paddy. The Tribunal, observed that the first respondent had violated the policy conditions of insurance by permitting unauthorized passengers to travel in his lorry. The Tribunal, however, on observing that the first respondent's lorry had been insured with the second respondent, at the time of accident and on relying on the judgment reported in 2006 ACJ 2426, Kotla Co-operative Society vs. Mohinder Arun & Others, held the second respondent liable to pay compensation to the petitioners in the first instance and then recover the same from the first respondent.

¶22

On scrutiny of Ex.P2, it is seen that the deceased was aged 40 years. The Tribunal, on taking the notional income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month and on adopting a multiplier of '16', awarded a sum of Rs.3,84,000/- as compensation for loss of income (3000 x 2/3 x 12 x 16); Rs.10,000/- was awarded for loss of consortium; Rs.5,000/- was awarded as compensation to the second petitioner under the head of loss of love and affection; and Rs.20,000/- was awarded to the third petitioner under the head of loss of love and affection; Rs.2,000/- was awarded towards transport expenses and Rs.2,500/- for funeral expenses. In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,99,500/- as compensation to the petitioners and directed the second respondent to pay the said sum together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim till date of payment of compensation, with costs, within two months from the date of its order. The second respondent, was however permitted to recover the above said amount, with interest, from the first respondent by filing execution proceedings without filing any suit to recover the same.

¶23

Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the second respondent / United India Insurance Company, Mettur has preferred the present appeal.

¶24

The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal erred in passing award against the appellant in respect of passenger in a goods vehicle, who is neither required to be covered under the Motor Vehicles Act nor covered under the policy. It was contended that the Tribunal erred in ordering 'pay and recovery' in respect of such a passenger in a goods vehicle, who is not covered under the policy and for whom the appellant has

¶25

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

¶26

assumed any liability. Hence, it was prayed to set-aside the award passed as against the appellant.

¶27

On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant 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 F.I.R. has been registered against the driver of the lorry and that the deceased was aged 40 years and that the said lorry had been insured with the insurance company. Hence, the award is confirmed. The pay and recovery ordered by the Tribunal is also appropriate and the same is confirmed.

¶28

This Court directs the appellant to deposit the entire compensation amount, with added interest thereon, as per Tribunal's findings, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, subject to deduction of earlier deposits. After such deposit having been been, it is open to all the claimants, including the third respondent / third claimant who has become a major during the pendency of the appeal, to withdraw their apportioned share amount, with proportionate interest thereon, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.1341 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Krishnagiri, after filing a Memo, along with a copy of this order.

¶29

In the result, the above appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the order and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.1341 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Krishnagiri, dated 29.10.2007, is confirmed. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶30

Sd/Asst.Registrar (CS V ) Dated: 16.5.2014

¶31

r n s

¶32

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

¶33

¶34

The Additional District Judge Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Krishnagiri.

¶35

The Section Officer VR Section High Court, Madras

¶36

1 cc to Mr.M.B. Gopalan, Advocate, Sr. 34080
C.M.A.No.3711 of 2008 &
M.P.No.1 of 2008
Bky (CO)
gp/2.6

¶37

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

The Branch Manager v. Mangammal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Branch Manager v. Mangammal

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

Pasooran Vs T.S.Indirani Ammal

The Divisional Manager, Vs Arumugam

The Divisional Manager, Vs Minor Tamail Arasi

Oriental Ins.Co.Ltd., Vs Arunachalam

P.Ayyasamy Vs a.Arunachalam

Arumugam Vs the Managing Director