Dismissed

Royal Sundaram Alliance v. Sevanthamani

Madras HC2 Jul 2018CMA(MD)/144/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismissed an appeal against an award of compensation in a motor accident case. The bench upheld the Tribunal's award of Rs.9,71,200/- as reasonable given the severe disability and immobility of the claimant, directing the insurer to deposit the amount.

What did the court decide?

Appellant directed to deposit the entire award amount with interest and costs to the credit of the claim petition.

Royal Sundaram Alliance Vs Sevanthamani — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 02.07.2018

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU

¶6

CMA(MD)No.144 of 2016 and CMP(MD)No.2376 of 2016

¶7

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd., Bus Plaza 3^rd Floor, 5G, Lasans Road, Cantonment, Trichy.

¶8

... Appellant/2^nd Respondent

¶9

vs.

¶10

1)Sevanthamani ... Respondent/Petitioner 2)Chandrakala ... Respondent/1^st Respondent

¶11

Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the fair and decreetal order dated 23.11.2015 made in MCOP.No.359 of 2013 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Kulithalai.

¶12

For Appellant : Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan For R1 : Mr.N.Sudhagar Nagaraj For R2 : Mr.M.Mahendran

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

The present appeal has been filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 23.11.2015 made in MCOP.No.359 of 2013 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Kulithalai.

¶15

2.It is the case of the 1^st respondent/claimant that on 28.10.2012, when she was walking on the extreme left side of TrichyDindigul main road, a Maruthi Alto Car bearing registration No.TN45-AU-1077 belonging to the 2^nd respondent insured with the appellant, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against her from behind. Due to the impact, the 1^st respondent fell down and sustained multiple injuries all over the body including fracture in the right hand below knee, fracture in the left leg below knee, fracture in the right side spinal cord, fracture in the right thigh and severe head injury. Immediately, she was taken to Dr.Kalaiarasan Hospital, Manapparai, and thereafter, she took treatment as inpatient in Vikram Hospital, Madurai, for the period between 28.10.2012 and 18.11.2012. It is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the claim of the petitioner that she incurred Rs.3,50,000/- towards medical expenses. She made a claim in MCOP.No.359 of 2013 on the

¶16

¶17

file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Kulithalai, claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in the accident. The appellant filed counter denying the manner of accident contending that without noticing the Car, the injured crossed the road and invited the accident and therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay compensation.

¶18

3.Considering the oral and documentary evidence on either side, the Tribunal held that the driver of the Car belonging to the 2^nd respondent insured with the appellant was responsible for the accident and awarded compensation of Rs.9,71,200/- with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Aggrieved by the said award, the appellant has filed this appeal.

¶19

4.The manner of accident is not in dispute. Perusal of the record shows that wound certificate of the injured issued from Vikram Hospital, Madurai, has been marked as Ex.P3. The claimant took treatment in the said hospital on two spells that is from 28.10.2012 to 18.11.2012 and from 24.07.2013 to 29.07.2013. The discharge summary issued for the above period has been marked as Exs.P5 and P6 respectively. A staff from the Vikram Hospital, Madurai, has been examined as PW2, who deposed that the claimant took treatment in the said hospital from 28.10.2012 to 18.11.2012 and from 24.07.2013 to 29.07.2013 and she paid Rs.1,70,000/- towards medical bills which has been marked as Ex.P12.

¶20

5.Perusal of the record further shows that the Doctor who issued the disability certificate has been examined as PW3. He has deposed that he perused the accident register, wound certificate, discharge summary, treatment record and found that the claimant sustained fracture in the right hand below knee, fracture in the left leg below knee, fracture in the right side spinal cord and fracture in the right thigh. On physical examination, the Doctor found that the movement of right hip, right knee, left knee and ankle is reduced and on perusal of Ex.P14-X-ray, he found that there was malunion of bones. He further deposed that the claimant cannot walk or stand and she has to sit in the wheel chair and she cannot even attend natural call by herself. So saying, the Doctor has issued Ex.P13-disability certificate stating that the claimant has sustained 85% partial permanent disability.

¶21

6.Today, the matter was mediated by me in Chambers. The claimant was directed to be present before this Court and accordingly, she was brought before this Court in a wheel chair. From the appearance of the claimant in a wheel chair, I could able to see that the claimant was immobilised and she could not even attend her natural calls by herself and she needs assistance to fulfil her requirements. Upon seeing the appearance of the 1^st respondent/claimant, learned counsel for the appellant also https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ convinced with the inability and disability of the claimant.

¶22

¶23

7.The appearance of the claimant itself shows that without the assistance of others, the claimant cannot even move and she is almost like a vegetable. Therefore, the quantum of compensation of Rs.9,71,200/- awarded to the 1^st respondent cannot be said to be excessive or bonanza warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, the quantum of compensation is sustained.

¶24

8.The appellant is directed to deposit the entire award amount with interest and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, to the credit of the claim petition within a period of four weeks from the date receipt of a copy of this judgment, if not deposited already. On such deposit, the 1^st respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the same without filing any formal petition before the Tribunal.

¶25

Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/ Assistant Registrar (CS-III) /True copy/

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

¶28

The Subordinate Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kulithalai.

¶29

+1cc to Mr.N.SUDHAGAR NAGARAJ, Advocate, SR.No.70756 +1cc to Mr.S.SRINIVASA RAGHAVAN, Advocate, SR.No.71082

¶30

CMA(MD)No.144 of 2016 02.07.2018

¶31

BALA

¶32

KK/SKN RSK/SAR-1/20.07.2018/3P-4C/

¶33

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

Royal Sundaram Alliance v. Sevanthamani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Royal Sundaram Alliance v. Sevanthamani

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

Susaiammal Vs Shanthilal Gangji Kimsariya

The Branch Manager, Vs Boopathy

Sri Ram General Insurance Co. Vs Ooran S/O.Ponnukonar

The Regional Manager Vs Minor Mohammed Meeran

Tamil Nadu State Transport Vs M.Muthusamy

V.Baburaj Vs Mesiadhas