Dismissed

The Divisional Manager v. Anuradha

Madras HC17 Jul 2018CMA(MD)/595/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed the civil appeal filed by the Insurance Company against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award of Rs. 4,98,072/- in a fatal accident case, confirming the Tribunal's findings on negligence and adequacy of compensation.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; Tribunal award confirmed; Appellant directed to deposit remaining award amount with interest.

The Divisional Manager Vs Anuradha — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 17.07.2018

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU

¶6

C.M.A(MD).No.595 of 2017 and

¶7

CMP(MD)Nos.6229 of 2017 and 3464 of 2018

¶8

The Divisional Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Sri Meenakshi Plaza,

¶9

1^st Floor, HIG 55, 80 Feet Road, Anna Nagar, Madurai - 20.

¶10

... Appellant/ 2^nd respondent

¶11

Vs.

¶12

1.Anuradha ... 1^st Respondent /Petitioner 2.Arunragavendran ... 2^nd Respondent /1^st respondent

¶13

PRAYER:- Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and decree dated 11.07.2016, passed in M.C.O.P.No.971 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, [Communal Clash Cases Court], Madurai.

¶14

For Appellant : Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan For Respondents : Mr.A.Saravanan – for R1

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed challenging the award passed by the learned Judge, Communal Clash Cases Court (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Madurai, in M.C.O.P.No.971 of 2012, dated 11.07.2016.

¶17

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

¶18

It is a case of fatal and the tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.4,98,072/- as compensation, against which, the Appellant/ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Insurance Company is before this Court.

¶19

¶20

Though several grounds are raised in the memorandum of

¶21

grounds, the main grounds on which the appellant has filed this appeal are on negligence and quantum.

¶22

The learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that

¶23

the accident took place on account of the sudden fall of the victim, who was physically handicapped and hence, there was no negligence on the part of the rider of the two wheeler who is none other than the son of the deceased. He would further submit that the finding of the Tribunal that the accident would not have occurred had the driver driven the vehicle in a careful manner, especially when he was carrying his physically challenged father as pillion, was incorrect and the same is liable to be set aside.

¶24

As far as the negligence is concerned, the tribunal has discussed the same very elaborately in Paragraph No.6, which clearly state that the rider of the motor cycle is the cause for the accident and there is no contra evidence put forth by the appellant to rebut the same and therefore, the finding of the learned Judge does not warrant any interference.

¶25

The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the claimant is a divorcee and therefore, she is not entitled for compensation for the death of her husband. Moreover, the Tribunal ought not to have fixed a sum of Rs.6,500/- as notional monthly income and therefore, prayed for interference. However, no document is produced by the appellant to prove that the claimant is a divorcee.

¶26

Insofar as the quantum is concerned, a reading of paragraph No.7 of the judgment clearly shows that the age of the deceased was rightly ascertained from the postmortem certificate as 60 and also fixed the income as Rs.6,500/- per month, which is reasonable.

¶27

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 income of the deceased and awarded a decent sum, which, in my considered opinion is very reasonable and there is no infirmity in the order passed by the trial judge and does not warrant interference.

¶28

In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. The award passed by the tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.971 of 2012 dated 11.07.2016, is hereby confirmed. 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the award amount with interest by the appellant, the 1^st respondent / claimant is permitted to withdraw the same with accrued interests

¶29

¶30

and costs, less the amount already withdrawn by her, if any, by filing proper application before the Tribunal. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

Assistant Registrar (CS-I)

¶33

/True Copy/

¶34

Sub Assistant Registrar (CS-II)

¶35

¶36

The Sessions Judge, Communal Clash Cases Court Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madurai.

¶37

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

¶38

- 1 CC TO Mr.S.SRINIVASA RAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE IN SR No. 73956 + 1 CC TO Mr.A.SARAVANAN, ADVOCATE IN SR No. 73292

¶39

¶40

TE/RP/SAR-2 : 30/07/2018 : 3P/6C

¶41

C.M.A(MD).No.595 of 2017

¶42

17.07.2018

¶43

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

The Divisional Manager v. Anuradha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Divisional Manager v. Anuradha

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

Noor Faigira Begam, Vs O.M.Rameeja Beevi

Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd., Vs Muthusamy

The Oriental Insurance Company Vs Sulochana

C. Patturaja Vs Sunitha J.Thomas

New India Assurance Company Vs Suseela

Minor Venkatesh(Aged 9 Years) Vs Tamil Nadu State Transport