Dismissed

The Divisional Manager, v. Gunasekaran

Madras HC6 Jul 2018CMA(MD)/511/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court, Madurai Bench, dismissed an appeal by an insurance company against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. The Court upheld the Tribunal's finding of liability and the assessed disability percentage of 30%, finding the award reasonable.

What did the court decide?

Appellant directed to deposit the award amount with interest and costs; appeal dismissed.

The Divisional Manager, Vs Gunasekaran — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 06.07.2018 CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU C.M.A(MD).No.511 of 2015 and

¶4

M.P(MD).No.1 of 2015

¶5

The Divisional Manager National Insurance Company Ltd., No.1754/1756 Manojiappa Street, Thanjavur.

¶6

... Appellant /2^nd respondent

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.Gunasekaran ... 1^st respondent /Petitioner 2.R.Adhimoolam ... 2^nd respondent/ 1^st respondent

¶9

PRAYER :- Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the Judgment and Decree dated 29.02.2012, made in MCOP No.556 of 2008 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal Subordinate Court, Thanjavur.

¶10

For Appellant : Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan For 1^st Respondent : Mr.G.Karnan For 2^nd Respondent : Tapal due

¶11

¶12

JUDGMENT

¶13

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Thanjavur, in MCOP No.556 of 2008 dated 29.02.2012.

¶14

Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side and perused the records carefully.

¶15

It is the case of the 1^st respondent/claimant that on 05.07.2007, he along with his minor son namely, Santhoshkumar were travelling in a Auto bearing registration No.TN-49-C-4770. While they were returning from Thirumalaisamuthiram, after worship at Bagavathi Amman Koil, near Thanjavur Sastra College, a Lorry bearing registration No.TN-45-C-6077 belonging to the 2^nd respondent insured with the appellant came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the Auto, in which, the claimant sustained grievous https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ injuries. The appellant filed counter disputing the manner of accident. The Tribunal considering the oral and documentary

¶16

¶17

evidence adduced on either side held that the driver of the Lorry was responsible for the accident and awarded compensation of Rs.75,000/- with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of claim. Aggrieved by the said award, the insurance company has filed this appeal challenging the liability and quantum.

¶18

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that at the time of accident, the driver of the Auto did not possess a valid driving licence to drive the vehicle and though it was proved through the evidence of RW1 who deposed that the driver possessed LMV licence and not possessed badge, and also the driving licence report from the Regional Transport Officer, Thanjavur, the Tribunal negatived the same and erroneously fastened liability on the appellant. It is further contended that after the amendment of the Motor Vehicles Act with effect from 14.11.1994, the usage of the vehicle is the only criterion and not the unladen weight of the same which the Tribunal has lost sight of. Therefore, the appellant should be exonerated from the liability to pay compensation.

¶19

However, this Court is not inclined to accept the above submission in view of the Full Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663, wherein, it has been held that the definition of ''light motor vehicle'' under Section 2(21) of the Act includes transport vehicle of the class and weight defined therein. The transport vehicle or omnibus would be light motor vehicle, gross vehicle weight of which, and also a motor car or tractor or road-roller, unladen weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg, and can be driven by holder of licence to drive light motor vehicle and no separate endorsement is required to drive such transport vehicle. Hence, the finding of the Tribunal fixing liability on the appellant is sustained.

¶20

Insofar as the quantum is concerned, the learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the tribunal has erred in fixing the disability of the claimant as 30% and therefore, the same deserves interference.

¶21

The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the tribunal was wrong in fixing the disability to the claimant cannot be accepted. Perusal of record shows that the claimant sustained fracture in his head as well as other parts of the body. From the doctor's evidence it is seen that his disability was assessed as 30%. The tribunal, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and after analyzing the evidences let-in by both the parties, has rightly fixed the disability and awarded a decent sum, which, in my considered https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ opinion is very reasonable and there is no infirmity in the order passed by the trial judge and does not warrant interference.

¶22

¶23

The appellant is directed to deposit the entire award amount awarded by the Tribunal 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 of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On deposit of the award amount with interest by the appellant, the 1^st respondent is permitted to withdraw the same after making appropriate application before the Tribunal.

¶24

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

¶25

/True Copy/

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-IV)

¶27

¶28

The Principal Subordinate Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thanjavur.

¶29

The Record Keeper,(2 copies) Vernacular Records Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶30

+1cc to Mr.G.Karnan, Advocate Sr.No.71460

¶31

¶32

VB/SKN/RSK/SAR4/03.08.2018/3P/5C

¶33

C.M.A(MD).No.511 of 2015 06.07.2018

¶34

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

The Divisional Manager, v. Gunasekaran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Divisional Manager, v. Gunasekaran

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

Seyadu Sulaiman, Vs Kannan

The Managing Director Vs Nargis Nirmala Devi

The Managing Director Vs Christina Philomina

The Regional Manager, Vs Arun,S/O.Deva Sathianathan

Rajalakshmi, Vs Balasubramanian

Muthammal, Vs Rajasekaran