Dismissed

Oriental Insurance Co., v. Manikumar (Aged 45 Yrs)

Madras HC5 Jul 2013CMA(MD)/232/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed an insurance company's appeal against a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award. The court held liable for 75% of the compensation, rejecting the insurer's defense based on overloading and the attender's negligence. The insurer was directed to deposit its share.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; Appellant directed to deposit Rs. 1,74,000 towards the claimant's compensation.

Oriental Insurance Co., Vs Manikumar (Aged 45 Yrs) — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

DATED : 05.7.2013

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE G.M. AKBAR ALI

¶5

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (MD) No.232 of 2013

¶6

Oriental Insurance Company, through its Branch Manager, II floor, SriVijay Complex, Theni ... Appellant/2nd Respondent

¶7

¶8

Mani Kumar ..1st Respondent/Claimant 2. Kalai Raj ..2nd Respondent/1st Respondent

¶9

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed against the order dated 21.3.2011 in M.C.O.P.No.182/2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal learned Principal District Judge, Theni.

¶10

For Appellant : M/s.P. Sarumathi For R.2 : Mr.N. Sudalaimuthu

¶11

JUDGMENT

¶12

Appeal filed against the order dated 21.3.2011 in M.C.O.P.No.182/2010 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Theni

¶13

Questioning the liability, the Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal.

¶14

Father of one Abirami, 4 years, a school going child, filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, Theni, Principal District Judge, Theni, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for her death, in an accident, which occurred when she was travelling in a school van.

¶15

According to the claimants, the deceased Abirami and other children were returning from school in a school van, bearing Registration No.TN 59-F 5256, owned and driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner. An attender (Aaya) was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ accompanying the children. It is alleged that she suddenly opened the door, when the van was on the move, as a result of which, the

¶16

child was thrown out and the van ran over her, due to which, she died on the spot. A sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was claimed as compensation from the owner and the Insurance Company.

¶17

The appellant Insurance Company resisted the claim on the ground that there were 30 students travelling in the van, which is against the permit rules and the attender one Rakkammal, had suddenly opened the door of the van and only due to her negligence, the occurrence had taken place and the Insurance Company was not liable.

¶18

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, viz., the learned Principal District Judge, Theni, found that though the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the driver, the attender Rakkammal was also responsible for the accident and therefore fixed the negligence at 75:25., i.e., 75% on the driver and 25% on the attender.

¶19

The Tribunal proceeded to grant a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- as compensation and a sum of Rs.7,000/- for other expenses and arrived a total compensation 2,32,0000/- deducted 25% at Rs.58,000/- (25% on the attender) and directed the appellant Insurance Company to pay Rs.1,74,000/-.(75%). Aggrieved by which, the Insurance Company is before this Court.

¶20

Mrs.P. Sarumathi, learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company submitted that though the accident was very unfortunate, the driver was not negligent in causing the accident. The learned counsel also pointed out that it is admitted that the attender one Rakkammal had suddenly opened the door when the van was on the move, due to which, the child had fallen down.

¶21

The learned counsel also pointed out that the Tribunal has not considered the legal aspect that the children who travelled were more than the capacity of the van and therefore, there is a breach of policy condition and the Insurance Company is not liable.

¶22

R.1 claimant remained exparte. 11. Heard and perused the materials available on record.

¶23

In an unfortunate incident in which an innocent 4 years child lost her life. It is admitted that in a moving van, an attender accompanying the children, had opened the door and the child had fallen down and the van ran over the child. Though there is force in the argument of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, the negligence on the part of the driver cannot be ignored.

¶24

Therefore, I have no reason to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal.

¶25

In fine, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and the Insurance Company is directed to deposit its share of Rs.1,74,000/-within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt

¶26

of copy of this order, if not already deposited and on such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the amount. No costs.

¶27

Sd/Assistant Registrar(C.O)

¶28

/True Copy/

¶29

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶30

¶31

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal District Judge, Theni

¶32

sr RL/2 c- 24/9/2013

¶33

Pre-Delivery Judgment in CMA (MD) No.232 of 2011 5-07-2013

¶34

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

Oriental Insurance Co., v. Manikumar (Aged 45 Yrs)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Oriental Insurance Co., v. Manikumar (Aged 45 Yrs)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Navappan, Vs Jegan

Kannagi Vs Managing Director

Sardhar Vs Annadurai

Bajaj Allianz General Vs Shanmugam

National Insurance Compnay Lt Vs R.Vennila

The Revenue Divisional Officer Vs Ramadevi