Partly allowed

The Branch Manager v. Singaravelu

Madras HC18 Jul 2014CMA/734/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed an appeal filed by an insurance company to modify a motor accident compensation award. The court held that while total negligence by the claimant precludes liability for the main claim, the insurer must pay the personal accident coverage limit as per the policy.

What did the court decide?

The compensation award was modified from Rs. 1,40,200 to Rs. 1 lakh, with interest at 7.5% per annum.

The Branch Manager Vs Singaravelu — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

¶2

Dated : 18.07.2014

¶3

Coram

¶4

The Honourable Mr.Justice R.SUBBIAH

¶5

M.P.No.1 of 2010

¶6

The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Thiruvarur Taluk & Munsif

¶7

..vs..

¶8

Singaravelu ..Respondent(Petitioner)

¶9

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and decree dated 21.10.2008 made in M.A.C.O.P.No.253 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge), Thiruvarur.

¶10

For Appellant : Mrs.R.Sreevidhya For Respondent : Mr.A.Thamizhavel

¶11

Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub-Judge), Thiruvarur, in and by award dated 21.10.2008 made in M.A.C.O.P.No.253 of 2006, the Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal.

¶12

2.The claimant is the respondent herein. It is the case of the claimant before the Tribunal that on 27.03.2006 at 4.30 pm, while he was going along with his wife in his two-wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-50C-5614, on Thiruthuraipoodi-Thiruneipor road, suddenly a bufello had crossed the road and in order to avoid hitting of the said buffalo, he immediately applied break and in that process, the two-wheeler overturned and he fell down and sustained serious injuries. Hence, he made a claim under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, as against the Insurance Company, claiming a sum of Rs.5 lakhs as compensation.

¶13

3.The Tribunal has passed an award for total sum of Rs.1,40,200/-. Break up details of the award amount are as follows:-

¶14

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

¶15

Loss of income for two months	= Rs. 6,000/-
Pain and sufferings	= Rs. 5,000/-
Loss of aminities	= Rs.85,000/-
Medical expenses	= Rs.44,200/-
	-----------------
	Rs.1,40,200/-

¶16

4.Now, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company that the accident had occurred only due to the own negligence of the claimant and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. However, there is a personal accident coverage under the Insurance Policy for Rs.1 lakh and except this sum of Rs.1 lakh, the claimant is not entitled to any other amount.

¶17

5.Heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶18

6.Considering the fact that the accident had occurred only due to the own negligence of the claimant, this Court is of the opinion that the claimant cannot make claim for compensation as against the Insurance Company. However, as contended by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, since there is a personal accident coverage for a sum of Rs.1 lakh under the Insurance Policy, the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.1 lakh as compensation. Hence, the compensation amount of Rs.1,40,200/- awarded by the Tribunal is hereby modified and reduced to Rs.1 lakh.

¶19

7.In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the modified award amount of Rs.1 lakh (Rupees One Lakh Only), with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit, to the credit of the above said MACOP, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the same by making necessary application before the Tribunal.

¶20

Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

¶21

Sd/Asst.Registrar 12.8.2014

¶22

True Copy

¶23

Sub Asst.Registrar

¶24

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

¶25

ssv

¶26

Copy to 1.The Subordinate Judge, (Motor Accidents Claims Tribuna), Thiruvarur.

¶27

2.The Section Officer, Vr Section, High Court,Madras.

¶28

+1cc to M/s. Sree Vidhya, Advocate Sr 31833 +1cc to Mr.M.Thamizhavel, Advocate Sr 31789 CNR(CO) km/19.8. C.M.A.No.734 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010

¶29

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

The Branch Manager v. Singaravelu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Branch Manager v. Singaravelu

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

Minor Ramesh Vs Ravikumar

R. Subramani Vs Inspector-General of

Lakshmi Vs Viveganandan

G. Malini W/O.R. Govindarajan Vs the Chief Controlling Revenue

R. Govindarajan Vs the Chief Controlling

The Managing Director Vs Dr. Usha Devi