Dismissed

The Divisional Manager v. P.Haridoss

Madras HC12 Apr 2014CMA/1399/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed an appeal filed by United India Insurance Company challenging the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award. The court upheld the Tribunal's finding of negligence against the driver of the insured vehicle and confirmed the awarded compensation.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed, the Tribunal's award was confirmed, and the appellant was directed to deposit the compensation with interest within four weeks.

The Divisional Manager Vs P.Haridoss — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 01.11.2018

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶5

C.M.A.No.1399 of 2011

¶6

The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Motor Third Party Claim Office, No.66-68, Gandhi Road, Kancheepuram. .. Appellant/2nd Respondent Vs.

¶7

P.Haridoss .. Respondent/Petitioner

¶8

A.M. Munusamy Mudaliar

¶9

The Managing Director, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Division-II, No. 1 and 2, Sheikpet Nadu Street, Kancheepuram .. Respondents/Respondents 1&3

¶10

Prayer:

¶11

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 to set aside the award made in M.C.O.P.No.150 of 2008 dated 31.3.2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Judge, Kancheepuram.

¶12

JUDGMENT

¶13

The instant appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the adverse finding of negligence fixed on the driver of the insured vehicle by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Judge, Kancheepuram in its award dated 31.3.2010 passed in MCOP.No.150 of 2008.

¶14

The brief facts leading to the filing of the instant appeal are as follows;

¶15

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

¶16

(i) The 1^st respondent sustained injuries on 30.11.2007 as a result of an accident caused by a bus bearing Registration No.AP-03-W-7575, owned by the 2^nd respondent, insured with the appellant, while he was travelling as a passenger in a Government bus bearing Registration No.TN-32-N-2034 belonging to the 3^rd respondent transport corporation.

¶17

(ii) The 1^st respondent preferred a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Judge, Kancheepuram in MCOP.No.150 of 2008 seeking a compensation of Rs.75,000 for the injuries sustained by him.

¶18

(iii) The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, by its award dated 30.11.2007 in MCOP.No.150 of 2008, directed the appellant to pay the 1^st respondent a sum of Rs.59,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim till the date of realisation.

¶19

(iv) Aggrieved by the finding of the tribunal attributing negligence on the part of the driver of the insured vehicle and exonerating the third respondent transport corporation, the owner of the Government bus, in which the 1^st respondent was travelling as a passenger, the instant appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company. In this appeal, the appellant has challenged only the adverse finding of negligence by the tribunal and has not challenged the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal.

¶20

Heard Mr. S.S.Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.C. Prabakaran, learned counsel for the 1^st respondent and Mr.V.Ramesh, learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent. The 2^nd respondent has remained exparte both before the tribunal as well as this Court.

¶21

It is brought to the notice of this Court that in similar Appeals filed by the appellant Insurance Company, arising out of the same accident, this Court, by its well considered judgement dated 7.9.2018 passed in C.M.A.Nos.1400 to 1403 of 2011, has confirmed the respective awards passed by the tribunal by holding that only due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus bearing Registration No. AP-03W-7575 insured with the appellant Insurance Company, the accident had happened.

¶22

This Court is in agreement with the findings of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the judgment dated 7.9.2018 passed in CMA.Nos.1400 to 1403 of 2011. In the light of the aforesaid judgement passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CMA.Nos.1400 to 1403 of 2011, this appeal is also dismissed.

¶23

In the result,

¶24

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

¶25

(i) the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected M.P.No.1 of 2011 is closed.

¶26

(ii) the compensation awarded by the tribunal under the

¶27

impugned award is hereby confirmed.

¶28

(iii) The appellant is directed to deposit the compensation

¶29

awarded by the tribunal along with interest, less the amount, if any, already deposited, to the credit of MCOP within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶30

(iv) On such deposit being made, the 1^st respondent is permitted to withdraw the same along with accrued interest on filing an appropriate application.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶33

//True Copy//

¶34

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶35

msr

¶36

¶37

1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Judge, Kancheepuram.

¶38

2.The Section Officer ,

¶39

Vernacular Section, High Court, Madras.

¶40

+1 cc to M/s.C.Prabakaran, Advocate Sr.No.75660

¶41

+1 cc to M/s.S.Arunkumar, Advocate Sr.No.76101

¶42

C.M.A.No.1399 of 2011

¶43

RSV(CO) CSL/12.12.2018

¶44

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

The Divisional Manager v. P.Haridoss

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Divisional Manager v. P.Haridoss

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

A. Venkatesh Vs Dr. a.Ahmed Ali

Sri Vinkateswara Service Vs Bharath Petroleum Corporation

S.Prabhulingam Vs N.Dilli

Muthu Vs Murugan[Died] Kamala

Mr.Chinnappan Vs Mr.Murugan

A. Murugesan Vs Smt. Jamuna Rani