Dismissed

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. R.Udayakumar

Madras HC12 Dec 2016CMA/4194/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil miscellaneous appeal, the High Court of Madras dismissed the insurer's challenge to a Madras Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award. The Court rejected complaints of a biased medical witness and the high disability percentage as the award modified by standard rates was modest and did not warrant interference.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the Tribunal's award was confirmed.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 12.12.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N. SESHASAYEE

¶5

C.M.A.No.4194 of 2008 and MP.No.1 of 2008

¶6

National Insurance Co. Ltd., 751, III Floor, Mount Road, Chennai – 600 002. ..Appellant/2nd Respondent Vs 1.R.Udayakumar 2.Bala Vinayakar Enterprises, No.57, Chithiraikulam North Street, Mylapore, Chennai - 4 .. Respondents/Petitioner/1st Respondent (2^nd Respondent ex parte in lower Court) Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree in MCOP.No.4511 of 2003 dated 07.02.2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Small Causes Court Chennai

¶7

For Appellant : Mr.N.Vijayaraghavan For Respondents : No appearance JUDGMENT

¶8

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the insurer of Bajaj Tempo TN07-E-6235, which caused an accident on 28.07.2002, injuring 24 years old fisherman against an award for Rs.1,23,500/- for assessed disablement of 35% arising out of fracture of right clavicle questioning that it was too high. The complaint is that PW2, the doctor was a stock witness in such proceedings and the certificate of disability was exaggerated.

¶9

This Court is unable to countenance this submission. Fundamentally, there was no contra evidence to the evidence of the expert doctor. The Tribunal went by the testimony as it

¶10

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

¶11

may have had to. Further, even assuming that the assessment of disability was padded up, the ultimate award, in comparison to the awards of today is modest. It is not denied by the insurer that Rs.3,000/- per percentage has become the standard or norm for consistency and convenience for disablement, apart from other heads as held in 2013(2) TNMAC 583 (Mad). If so, the award for Rs.1,23,500/- would be easily reached in this case even if the percentage of disability was scaled down.

¶12

By no stretch of imagination would this award qualify to be in the inordinately high or unconscionably so category to warrant interference. This Court finds it easy to confirm the award and dismiss the appeal as being without substance. The appellant has already deposited the award sum and the claimant would be entitled to withdraw the same. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶13

-s/dAssistant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar ds To: The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.2 Small Causes Court Chennai. +1 cc to Mr.N.Vijayaraghavan Advocate sr 72951

¶14

C.M.A.No.4194 of 2008 skv(co) aa25/01/2017

¶15

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

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. R.Udayakumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. R.Udayakumar

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

K. Selvaraj Vs Smt. Kantha, Added as L.R. of

M.Vidyasekar Vs S.Karthikeyan

Thebranch Manager Vs R.Savithiri

Vs

The Union of India Vs Ravi

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