Dismissed

National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. R.Manikandan

Madras HC16 Dec 2016CMA/2225/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal filed by an insurer against a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award. The insurer contested an accident involving an insured vehicle, citing a delayed FIR and evidentiary gaps. The Court held the burden was on the insurer to prove fabrication, which was not met, and upheld the 50% liability award.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed without costs; the appellant's liability remains 50% of the award, and the excess sum deposited is to be withdrawn by the claimant.

National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs R.Manikandan — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 16.12.2016

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE

¶5

C.M.A.No.2225 of 2008

¶6

National Insurance Company Limited,
2/4, Vigneswara Buildings,
Puthukottai Road, Trichy - 20. ... Appellant
Vs.
1. R.Manikandan,
2. A.Gowrinathan
3. S.Arokiasamy
4. Gopal
5. M.Kandasamy,
6. United India Insurance
Company Limited,
4/23-G, 4 EV, Idapadi Road,
Sankari Taluk, Salem. ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree
in M.C.O.P.No.117 of 2004 dated 06.10.2007 on the file of the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Principal Subordinate Court,
Coimbatore.
For Appellant : Mr.N.Vijayaraghavan
For RR1 & 2 : Mr.E.D.Sethupathy

¶7

JUDGMENT

¶8

The appeal has been filed by the National Insurance Company Limited, on the ground that the Maruti Omni Van bearing registration no.TN 45 R 1435, insured with them was not involved in the accident that was said to have taken place on 10.06.2002 along with another Tata Sumo TN 09 W 2597 insured with the United India Insurance Company Limited, the sixth respondent herein. The only contention urged is in respect of this ground and no dispute was raised regarding of compensation determined at Rs.2,20,425/- to be paid in the ratio 50:50 by both the insurance compnaies.

¶9

The case of the claimant is that on 10-06-2002 at about 10.30 pm, while he was travelling in a Tata Sumo car bearing No TN 09W 2597, a Maruti Van bearing No TN 45R 1435 belonging to the third respondent herein (second respondent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ before the Tribunal), driven by the second respondent (first

¶10

respondent before the Tribunal) and insured with the appellant, collided with it owing to which the claimant had lost his vision of the right eye fully and that of the left eye partially and approached the Tribunal with a claim of Rs 15.0 lakhs. The Tribunal found that the drivers of both the vehciles were negligent in equal terms in causing the accident, and determined the compensation payable at Rs.2,20,425/-, apportioned the said laibility equally between the respective owner and insurer of both the vehicles and directed its payament with interest at 7.5% p.a.

¶11

Contending that the involvment of the Maruti Omini van is extremely suspicious and unlikely, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that to begin with for an accident said to have occurred on 10-06-2003, the FIR was lodged after about 100 days on 19-09-2003; secondly, the claimant clims that he was admitted in M/s Arvind Hospital, Coimbatore, but in every medico-legal case any hospital would inform the police but Arvind Hospital has not informed the police; thirdly, both the driver and the owner of the maruti Van in question have entered appearance without even been properly served with notice of the O.P. and have filed their counters admitting negligence and the liability, as the case may be, and this is indicative of the collusion between the claimant and the owner of the Maruti Van, which in turn had prompted the appellant/insurer to obtain permission to contest the case under Sec. 170 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Vide order dated 23.11.2006 in CRP. No.954 of 2005. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court the decision in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. CBI [2006 (2) LW 176 (mad) (DB)] where instances of false motor accidents claims were referred to CBI for reivestigation.

¶12

The burden is squarely on the insurer to plead and prove that the claim was false and fabricated. It is not made evident if any specific complaint was filed by the appellant with regard to the accident in this case before the CBI though there is a reference to it in Ext.R-3, and if so it is necessary for it to state what had happened to it. Mere filing of a complaint or registering a FIR cannot be termed as a conclusive proof of a false claim. There is no knowing if the investigative agency has come out with any materials that might prima facie indicate that the claim in this case, more particularly as one involving the Maruti Van referred to above, was false. And, how long should this Court wait? Even today there is no clarity on the outcome of the various such complaints pending with the investigative agency.

¶13

Now turning to evidence, the testimonies of both R.W.1 and R.W. 2 both who were examined by the insurance companies also do not advance the case of the appellant for neither of these witnesses have any direct knowledge about the accident. Their evidence at the best may indicate that the involvement https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of the Maruti Van in question in the accident is suspicious

¶14

and no more. The evidence can not be considered as too strong enough to proabilize that the Mruti Van might not have been involved in the accident. The only other evidence is the belated registration of Ext.P-1 FIR in this case. But can it, on its own strength, lend credibility to the suspicion that the appellant entertains? Not, in the opinion of this Court, for, independent of it, the eyewitness account on the accident has gone uncontroverted.

¶15

I find no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed but without costs. The liability fastened on the appellant/insurer is only 50% of the award of Rs.2,20,425/-. The appellant insurer has already deposited its share of the award 50% thereof. Hence, the claimant would be at liberty to withdraw the sum so deposited forthwith.

¶16

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS IV)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
kmi
To:
1. United India Insurance Company Limited,
4/23-G, 4 EV, Idapadi Road,
Sankari Taluk, Salem.
2. The Principal Subordinate Court,
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Coimbatore.
+1cc to Mr. N. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate, S.R.No.73063
+1cc to Mr.E.D. Sethupathi, Advocate, S.R.No.73471
LRS(CO)
EU 21.02.17
C.M.a.No.2225 of 2008

¶17

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

National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. R.Manikandan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. R.Manikandan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shanmugam Vs R.Venkatesan

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Vs S. Kousalya Devi

M/S.Oriental Ins.Co.Ltd., Vs R.Bakthavatchalam,S/O.Ranga-

Selvam Vs Devagi

Saraswathi Vs Govindaraj

National Ibnsurance Co.Ltd. Vs Santha