Dismissed

Orientel Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Vasantha

Madras HC21 Jun 2019CMA/1550/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This civil miscellaneous appeal against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award was disposed of. The Court confirmed the quantum of Rs. 5,10,000 and directed the first respondent and fourth respondent to pay 50% each, directing recovery of the appellant's share from the vehicle owner.

What did the court decide?

Appellant to pay 50%, fourth respondent to pay 50% and refund appellant's share from third respondent directly to first respondent.

Orientel Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Vasantha — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21.06.2019 CORAM: THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1550 of 2006 & CMP No.6919 of 2006

¶2

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Salem ...Appellant/2nd Respondent
..vs..
1. Vasantha ...1st Respondent/Petitioner
2. R.Chinnasamy
3. R.Sivakumar
4. National Insurance Company Ltd.,
88-AF Byepass Road, Dharmapuri Town
...2 to 4 Respondents/
Respondents 1,3 and 4
Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, against the award and decree, dated 01.09.2005 made in
M.C.O.P.No.946 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Sub Court, Krishnagiri.
For Appellant : Mr. S.Arunkumar
For Respondents : Mr. P.Mani, for R-1,
Mr. N.Vijayaraghavan, for R-4,
No Appearance, for R-2 & R-3.
---
J U D G M E N T
The learned counsel appearing for both sides, at the outset,
submitted that, in the same road accident that took place at
03.30 pm on 04.02.2001 involving the same vehicles, two
claimants, by name, Meena and S.Selammal, filed MCOPs; the said
petitions were taken on file and awards have been passed; the
said awards were challenged before this Court in CRP (NPD)
No.807 of 2004 and CMA (NPD) No.306 of 2003, wherein while
passing judgment, this Court has held as follows:-

¶3

"15. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant since the finding of contributory negligence recorded in MCOP No.213 of 2001 by the claims Tribunal has not been challenged by the fourth respondent herein and the said finding has been confirmed by this Court in C.R.P.No.807 of 2004, the fourth respondent is liable to pay 50% of the compensation and accordingly, the award of the Tribunal is confirmed.

¶4

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

¶5

As far as the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, ..... A sum of Rs.1,02,000/- shall be paid equally by the appellant as well as the fourth respondent.

¶6

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that entire compensation has been deposited by the appellant to the credit of MCOP No.264 of 2001 and 50% of the award amount has been withdrawn by the first respondent. Therefore, 50% of the award amount is entitled to be withdrawn by the first respondent. Since the appellant has paid the entire compensation instead of 50% as decided by this Court in CMA No.306 of 2003, the fourth respondent - National Insurance Company Limited shall pay its share of 50% to the appellant - Oriental Insurance Company Limited and the fourth respondent - National Insurance Company Limited are entitled to recover the said amount from the third respondent, the owner of the tempo van."

¶7

Since the manner of accident, vehicles and issue involved in the said CRP (NPD) No.807 of 2004 and CMA (NPD) No.306 of 2003 and this CMA are one and the same, this Court is of the view that the said decision squarely applies to the facts of the case also.

¶8

As far as the quantum of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is concerned, the same is passed based on probabilities of case and documents produced on either side. Further, the ratio of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages awarded by the Claims Tribunal, in the case cited supra, as well as the award impugned in this Appeal, are based on nature of injuries sustained and period of treatment taken. Hence, this Court is of the view that the same does not require any interference at the hands of this Court. In such view of the matter, the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.5,10,000/- under the following break-up details is hereby confirmed:-

¶9

Heads	Amt. / Rs.
For Injuries	1,50,000/-
Medical expenses	60,000/-
Transportation expenses	4,000/-
Damage to cloths / personal materials	5,000/-
Loss of earning during the treatment period	6,000/-
Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability	1,50,000/-

¶10

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

¶11

Heads		Amt. /	Rs.
Future Medical expenses		10	,000/-
Pain and sufferings		75	,000/-
	Total	5,10	,000/-

¶12

The said compensation amount shall be paid equally by the appellant as well as the fourth respondent.

¶13

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that entire compensation has been deposited by the appellant to the credit of MCOP No.946 of 2003. Hence, the Tribunal is directed to transfer the said sum, along with accrued interest therefor, to the Savings Bank Account of the claimant / first respondent herein, forthwith, through RTGS. Since the appellant has paid the entire compensation instead of 50% as decided by this Court, the fourth respondent - National Insurance Company Limited shall pay its share of 50% to the appellant - Oriental Insurance Company Limited and the fourth respondent-National Insurance Company Limited is entitled to recover the said amount from the third respondent, the owner of the tempo van.

¶14

With the above modification, this Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected
CMP is closed.
Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (CS II )
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
srk
To
1. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court,
Krishnagiri.
2. The Section Officer, V.R.Section,
Madras High Court, Chennai 104
+1 cc to Mr.P.Mani Advocate sr51538
+1 cc to Mr.N.Vijayaraghavan Advocate sr51497
+1 cc to Mr.S.ArunKumar Advocate sr51291
C.M.A.No.1550 of 2006
& CMP No.6919 of 2006
vba(co)
aa30/10/2019

¶15

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

Orientel Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Vasantha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Orientel Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Vasantha

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

1.BRANCH Manager, Vs K.Gopal

Janardhanan Vs P Chandrasekaran

National Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs K.Semalaiappan,S/O.Karuppasamy

National Ins.Co.Ltd., by Its Vs v.Rangaswamy,S/O.Veerappakonar

Ekambaram Vs S.Shankar

National Insurance Vs Balaji