Dismissed

New India Assurance Co.Ltd v. Veerappan (Deceased)

Madras HC5 Dec 2016CMA/3268/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The divisional bench dismissed the insurance company's appeal against the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's award of compensation to a cyclist. The court found the award fair and just, dismissed the appeal, and dispensed with notice to respondents. The opinion by N.Seshasayee J., 05.12.2016, CMA No.3268/2003.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed with costs borne by appellant; notice dispensed to respondents 4 and 6.

New India Assurance Co.Ltd Vs Veerappan (Deceased) — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 05.12.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE

¶5

CMA.No.3268 of 2003

¶6

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
Bharathi Road,
Cuddalore – 607 001. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Veerappan (Died)
2.A.Jubbir
3.Veerammal
4.Sundari
5.Pappathi
6.Natarajan
7.Rajeshwari
8.Narayanan ... Respondents
(Respondents 3 to 8 are impleaded as legal
representatives of the deceased 1 st respondent
vide order dated 27.09.2013 made in CMP.No.
789 of 2010 in CMA.No.3268 of 2003)
Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree
dated 09.01.2003 made in MCOP.No.88 of 2000 on the file of the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal Sub Court), Cuddalore.
For Appellant : Mr.Ramesh Babu
JUDGMENT

¶7

The Insurance Company has preferred this appeal challenging the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in a case where the claimant who was a cyclist at that relevant time suffered injuries when he was knocked down by a bus. The accident had taken place on 19.10.1998, some 18 years from today.

¶8

The first respondent/claimant was aged 50 years at that relevant time was an agriculturist, had lost 13 teeth and also fractured his maxillary bone in the accident. P.W.2, the doctor had determined the disability vide Ex.P3 at 50%. On various pecuniary and general heads of damages, the first respondent/claimant made a claim of R.2,00,000/-. The Tribunal assessed the permanent disability suffered by the claimant at

¶9

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

¶10

40% and upon providing him with a notional income of Rs.2,000/and adopting a multiplier of 13, it granted Rs.1,24,800/- on all heads of compensation including loss of earning power.

¶11

The first respondent/claimant is no more and his legal representatives are respondents 3 to 8, of whom the notice is yet to be served to respondents 4 and 6.

¶12

It is an accident of the year 1998 and on going through the award, I find that the Tribunal has fairly and justly awarded compensation for the permanent disability that the claimant had suffered. In fact on various heads of general damages, the Tribunal has not granted any compensation. Neither the claimant/first respondent or any of his legal representatives attempted to appear before the Court at any time to contest the inadequacy of quantum. I find no merit in the appeal and it is for this reason, I dispense notice to respondents 4 and 6, as the conclusion which I have now arrived will not affect the accrued rights of legal representatives of the deceased first respondent/claimant.

¶13

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the entire award amount has been deposited into the Court and if the said amount or any portion thereof has not yet been withdrawn, the legal representatives of the deceased first respondent would be free to withdraw the same forthwith upon producing such material as may be required to claim the total said amount before the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed without costs. Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS II) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Principal Sub Court) Cuddalore. 2.The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras. +1cc to Mr.C.Ramesh Babu, Advocate Sr.71718 CMA.No.3268 of 2003 gmi[co] srg 30/01/2017

¶14

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

New India Assurance Co.Ltd v. Veerappan (Deceased)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

New India Assurance Co.Ltd v. Veerappan (Deceased)

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

United India Vs P. Kamaraj

M/S United India Assurance Co. Vs M/S the Arya Vaidhya Pharmacy

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mathappan

The New India Assurance Co.Ltd Vs Thiru Ranganathan

The Managing Director Vs P.Dhakshinamoorthy

Sn Raj Vs Union of India