Allowed

V. Sundararaj v. S. Murugavel

Madras HC16 Jul 2013CMA/644/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's order. Finding the insurance policy valid and negligence proved, the Court directed the insurer to pay Rs.3,00,000 with interest, modifying the Tribunal's liability structure.

What did the court decide?

Insurance company directed to pay Rs.3,00,000 with interest; Tribunal order modified to reflect liability with insurer and apportionment for minors.

V. Sundararaj Vs S. Murugavel — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 16.07.2013

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN

¶5

C.M.A.No.644 of 2006

¶6

1.V.Sundararaj 2.Minor.Devi 3.Minor.Veerammal (Appellants 2 and 3 and represented by their father and natural guardian Mr.Sundararaj, 1st appellant) All are residing at Chennimalaipalayam Udumalpet, Coimbatore District. ... Appellants /Petitioners Vs. 1.S.Murugavel 2.V.Manieswaran 3.The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Udumalpet, Coimbatore District. 4.N.Saravanan 5.S.Kulandaivelu 6.The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Udumalpet, Coimbatore District. ...Respondents /Respondents

¶7

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and decree made in M.C.O.P.No.264 of 1998 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Subordinate Court, Udumalpet, dated 06.10.2003.

¶8

For Appellants : Mr.K.Kalyana Sundaram For Respondents : Not ready notice (R-1, R-2 and R-4) R-5 (served) Mr.S.Mohan for R-3 and R-6

¶9

¶10

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

¶11

J U D G M E N T

¶12

The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

¶13

The appellants / claimants have filed a claim petition against the respondents stating that the first claimant's wife viz., Masaiammal was travelling as a loadwoman along with her belongings on the van on 08.02.1998 on the Udumalaipet Main Road and at that point of time, a lorry bearing registration No.TAG-978 came at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the van; as a result, the said Masaiammal and three others had succumbed to their injuries. Hence, the legal-heirs of Masaiammal have filed the claim petition against the driver, owner and insurer of the lorry as well as the driver, owner and insurer of the van.

¶14

The third respondent / Insurance Company of the lorry had filed a counter statement rebutting the claim petition. The respondent denied the averments in the claim that the accident was cause due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry. The averments in the claim regarding age, income and occupation of the deceased was also not admitted.

¶15

On considering the averments of both parties, the Tribunal had framed two issues, viz.,

¶16

"(i) Whether the accident had been committed by the first respondent or fourth respondent?

¶17

(ii) whether the claimants are entitled to receive compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation?"

¶18

On the side of the claimants, two witnesses were examined and eight documents were marked, viz., F.I.R., R.C.S.order, postmortem report, Motor Vehicle Inspector's report, death certificate, legal-heirship certificate, copy of the R.C.Book and copy of insurance policy. On the side of the respondents, no one was examined and no document was marked.

¶19

P.W.1 had adduced evidence that on 18.02.1988, when his wife Masaiammal was travelling in the second respondent's van, on the Udumalaipet main Road, after finishing her coolie work, a lorry bearing registration No.TAG-978 driven by its driver in a reckless manner had dashed against the van; as a result she had sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to her injuries. He further adduced evidence that the second and third claimants are minor daughters of the deceased Masiammal. He further adduced evidence that the deceased was earning Rs.3,000/- per month as a coolie and at that time of accident, the age of the deceased was 25 years. Supporting his evidence, he had marked the above

¶20

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

¶21

mentioned documents. P.W.2 had spoken on the same lines of P.W.1 regarding mode of accident.

¶22

After considering the evidence of witnesses, the Tribunal directed the first and second respondents to pay the compensation of a sum of Rs.2,58,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The claim as against the respondents 3 to 6 were dismissed.

¶23

Not being satisfied with the award passed by the Tribunal, the above appeal has been filed by the claimants.

¶24

The learned counsel for the claimants argued that the accident had been committed due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the first respondent. He further submits that the F.I.R has been registered against the driver of the lorry. The second and third respondents are owner and insurer of the offending lorry. At the time of accident, the lorry was insured with the third respondent, viz., Oriental Insurance Company. Therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation, but the Tribunal had directed the driver and owner of the lorry to pay the said compensation amount, hence the learned counsel entreats the Court to give direction to the third respondent to pay the said compensation amount. He further submits that the deceased was aged 25 years and she was coolie and earning Rs.3,000/- per month. The Tribunal had not granted adequate compensation to the claimants, who are husband and minor daughters of the deceased and hence, the learned counsel has sought additional compensation of a sum of Rs.42,000/- with interest since the negligence and liability have been proved against the offending vehicle driver, owner and insurance company.

¶25

The learned counsel for the Insurance Company contended that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger and as such, as the conditions laid down in the policy of insurance had been violated, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants. He further submits that the claimants had not produced any document regarding earning proof of the deceased. He further submits that the Tribunal had already granted adequate compensation under all the relevant heads and hence, the learned counsel entreats the Court to dismiss the appeal.

¶26

On verifying the factual position of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the impugned orders of the Tribunal, this Court is of the view that the F.I.R. has been registered against the driver of the lorry and the insurance policy was in force for the lorry. Therefore, the third respondent / Oriental Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation. The deceased's age was 25 years and she was involved in the construction work as a labourer and the

¶27

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

¶28

second and third respondents are minor daughters and as such, this Court is inclined to grant the original claim amount of a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as it is found to be reasonable in the circumstances of the case. Hence, this Court directs the third respondent/insurance company to pay the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to the claimants. This Court further directs the third respondent to deposit a sum of Rs.2,58,000/-, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till date of payment of compensation. This Court further directs the third respondent to pay additional compensation amount, as per this Court's order, of a sum of Rs.42,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till date of payment of compensation. This Court instructs the third respondent to pay the said compensation amount as mentioned above within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶29

This Court apportions the compensation as follows:The first appellant / first claimant is apportioned a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest; the second appellant / second claimant is apportioned a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest; The third appellant / third claimant is apportioned a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest;

¶30

After such a deposit being made, it is open to first appellant / first claimant to withdraw a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, with interest thereon, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.264 of 1998 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Subordinate Court, Udumalpet, after filing a Memo, along with a copy of this order. This Court further directs the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Subordinate Court, Udumalpet to disburse the apportioned share amounts of the minors subject to their attaining the age of a major. If the minor claimants had not reached the age of a major, then the apportioned share amount is to be deposited in a Nationalized Bank, as fixed deposit under the cumulative deposit scheme until such time, they attain the age of a major and the fixed deposit certificates have to be handed over to the father of the minor claimants, i.e, the appellant herein.

¶31

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

¶32

In the result, the above appeal is allowed with the above modification. Consequently, the order passed in M.C.O.P.No.264 of 1998 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Subordinate Court, Udumalpet, dated 06.10.2003 is modified. There is no order as to costs.

¶33

Sd/-
Asst.Registrar

¶34

/True Copy/
Sub Asst.Registrar
r n s
To
1. The Subordinate Court,
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
Udumalpet.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R.SEction,
High Court, Madras-104.
+1cc to Mr.K.Kalyanasundaram, Advocate Sr 35941
+1cc to Mr.S.Manohar, Advocate Sr 35971
km/17.10.
C.M.A.No.644 of 2006

¶35

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

V. Sundararaj v. S. Murugavel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V. Sundararaj v. S. Murugavel

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

Tejaram Vs Baby

Tamil Nadu State Vs Pc Palaisamy

The Managing Director Vs N.Balammal

National Instt.of Technology Vs the Presiding Officer

Thambidurai Vs Tamil Nadu State

The Managing Director Vs Sudha