Dismissed

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. R. Rani

Madras HC17 Oct 2014CMA/2366/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge dismissed the insurance company's appeal against the MACT's award of disability compensation. Upholding the Tribunal's assessment of 45% disability as just and reasonable despite a doctor's 50% assessment, the court affirmed the award without interference.

What did the court decide?

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal dismissed; Insurance Company directed to deposit award amount within 2 months; Claimant directed to apply for withdrawal.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs R. Rani — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 17.10.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN

¶5

United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,

¶6

No.19, Audiappa Gramani Street,

¶7

Chennai 600 013. ..Appellant/2nd Respondent Vs.

¶8

R. Rani 2. S. Manivannan ..Respondents/Petitioner & Ist Respondent Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal as against the judgment and decree dated 29.01.2014 passed in M.C.O.P. NO. 4041 of 2012 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,( V Court of Small Causes), Chennai.

¶9

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company as against the judgment dated 29.01.2014 passed in M.C.O.P. No. 4041 of 2012 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (V Court of Small Causes), Chennai.

¶10

The claim petition was filed by the 1^st respondent herein claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.4 lakhs for the injuries sustained by her in the accident that took place on 23.07.2012, at 12.15hrs, when she was hit by the motor cycle, belonging to the 2^nd respondent herein and insured with the appellant, on account of the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the said vehicle. The claimant suffered head injury with laceration and tenderness in occipital region, airline crack fracture of 9^th meta torsal bone, as evidenced by Ex-P4, the Discharge Summary. The Doctor, who was examined as P.W.2, assessed the percentage of disability as 50% and had issued a certificate to that effect, namely, ExP-7. The X-ray was marked as Ex-P8. As per the evidence of the Doctor, on account of the injuries sustained, the claimant’s routine activities and her

¶11

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

¶12

avocation had been greatly affected. The Tribunal, taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, the age of the claimant, the evidence on record and the recent pronouncement of this Court reported in 2013 (1) TNMAC 47 (New India Assurance Company Limited V,. E. Ponnurangam) and the decisions of the Honourable Apex Court reported in 2010 (10) SCC 254 (Aravind Kumar Mishra V. New India Insurance Company and another) and AIR 2012 SC 2893 (Kavitha V. Deepak and Others) awarded compensation under the following heads:

¶13

The rate of interest payable was fixed at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Questioning the quantum of compensation awarded, the present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company.

¶14

EVenthough the Doctor had assessed the disability of the claimant at 50%, the Tribunal had taken the disability at 45%. Moreover, when the Tribunal has arrived at the compensation, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case; the age of the claimant; the nature of injuries sustained by her, which had affected her avocation and routine life to a great extent; the evidence adduced, both oral and documentary and decisions of the Honourable Apex Court, this Court is of the view that there is no reason to interfere with the compensation arrived at by the Tribunal, as it is only just and reasonable and not excessive, as contended by the appellant. Hence, while confirming the award of the Tribunal, the appellant is directed to comply with paragraph No.9 of the judgment

¶15

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

¶16

of the Tribunal, within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such compliance, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the award amount by making necessary application before the Tribunal. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed with the above direction. No costs. Connected M.P.No.1 of 2014 is closed.

¶17

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
nv
To
1.The Registrar,Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.
1 cc to Mr.C. Paranthaman ,Advocate, SR.No.49762
C.M.A. No. 2366 of 2014
sr(co)
pmk.24.12.2014

¶18

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

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. R. Rani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. R. Rani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G/ Jeevarathinam Vs K. Basheer Ahamed

Royal Sundaram Alliance Vs Uthiradam @ Govindaraj

M/S Bajaj Allianz General Vs Abel Samuel Wilson

A.Abbas Vs Jarina Begum

The New India Assurance Vs M.Velumani

The Managing Director Vs Muneeshwari