Dismissed

The Branch Manager, v. M.Xavier Jabakumar

Madras HC7 Nov 2017CMA(MD)/1158/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench dismissed the Insurance Company's appeal against a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal order. The Court held that the Tribunal correctly fixed the quantum of compensation and rejected the claim of contributory negligence due to lack of evidence and the claimant's acquittal in the criminal trial.

What did the court decide?

The Appeal CMA(MD)No.1158 of 2015 and the Cross Objection (MD)No.27 of 2017 were dismissed with no costs.

The Branch Manager, Vs M.Xavier Jabakumar — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 07.11.2017

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

C.M.A.(MD)No.1158 of 2015 and Cros.Obj.(MD)No.27 of 2017

¶7

The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd, Mutt Street, 1^st Floor, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District.

¶8

... Appellant/2^nd Respondent in CMA(MD)No.1158 of 2015

¶9

... 1^st respondent in Cros.Obj(MD)No.27 of 2017

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.M.Xavier Jabakumar ... 1^st respondent/Claimant in CMA(MD)No.1158 of 2015 & Cross Objector in Cros.Obj(MD)No.27 of 2017 2.R.Nagarajan ... 2^nd respondent/Respondent 1 in CMA(MD)No.1158 of 2015 & ...2^nd respondent in Cros.Obj(MD)No.27 of 2017

¶12

Prayer: CMA(MD)No.1158 of 2015 is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Cros.Obj(MD)No.27 of 2017 is filed under Order XLI Rule 22 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and degree dated 10.09.2014 made in M.C.O.P No.5092 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / Special Subordinate Judge, Trichirappalli.

¶13

For Appellant in CMA and Respondent No.1 in Cross Obj. : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar

¶14

For R 1 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in CMA & Cross Appellant in Cross Obj. : Mr.R.Saravanan

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶18

2.The insurance company has filed CMA(MD)No.1158 of 2015 questioning the award dated 10.09.2014 made in M.C.O.P No.5092 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / Special Subordinate Judge, Trichirappalli on the ground of negligence as well as the quantum. The injured claimant has also filed Cross Objection seeking enhancement.

¶19

3.The accident in question took place on 23.03.2007. The claimant was driving a lorry bearing Registration No.TN 59 E 5535. There was a head on collision involving the another lorry insured with the appellant insurance company. In the accident, the claimant suffered fractures. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,18,100/-. The claimant had suffered partial and permanent disability to the tune of 52%. The medical cost alone was over Rs.1,21,000/-. Therefore, the award amount cannot be said to be excessive by any standard.

¶20

4.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the claimant had also contributed to the accident. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel would rely on the F.I.R. The F.I.R shows that the claimant is the accused. But it has been consistently held by this Court that the Tribunal will have to arrive at a finding on the negligence independently and not mechanically go by F.I.R. In this case, the claimant had ultimately been acquitted by the Criminal Court. Therefore, the fact that he was initially shown as an accused pales into insignificance. Before the Tribunal, the only competent witness to be examined about the accident is the claimant himself. On the side of the insurance company only official can be examined. In the absence of any other credible material, the Tribunal chose to go by the testimony of the claimant. On that basis, it fastened the entire negligence on the driver of the other vehicle. This reasoning cannot be said to be incorrect.

¶21

5.I am therefore unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant insurance company that the claimant should also be fastened with contributory negligence. Since I have already held that the quantum of compensation has been correctly fixed, I find no merit in this appeal.

¶22

6.The award dated 10.09.2014 made in M.C.O.P No.5092 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / Special Subordinate Judge, Trichirappalli stands confirmed.

¶23

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

¶24

¶25

7.It is represented by the learned counsel for the appellant that the insurance company has already been deposited the entire compensation amount. Therefore, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the balance amount with proportionate interest as awarded by the Tribunal by filing proper application before the Tribunal, less the amount already withdrawn by him, if any.

¶26

8.The CMA(MD)No.1158 of 2015 is dismissed as well as the Cross Objection (MD)No.27 of 2017 is also dismissed. No costs.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

Assistant Registrar(Crl.Side)

¶29

/True Copy/

¶30

Sub Assistant Registrar.

¶31

¶32

The Special Subordinate Judge /Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Trichirappalli

¶33

+1CC to Mr.N.Dilip Kumar, Advocate, SR.No. 85729 +1CC to Mr.R.Saravanan, Advocate, SR.No. 85885

¶34

C.M.A.(MD)No.1158 of 2015 and Cros.Obj(MD)No.27 of 2017 07.11.2017

¶35

skm

¶36

AM/JC/SAR 3/20.12.2017/3P/4C

¶37

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

The Branch Manager, v. M.Xavier Jabakumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Branch Manager, v. M.Xavier Jabakumar

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

Merline Selva Sundari Vs J. Jeyakanthan Thangaiah

Selvi @ Ponnimani Selvi Vs the Managing Director

The United India Insurance Vs Gomathi

Ganesan, Vs Muthukanagarajan

P.Silambayee (Unsound) Vs a.Shagayajuli

N.Janaki, Vs the Tahsildar