Partly allowed

United India Insurance Co.Ltd v. Perumal,S/O.Poongavanam

Madras HC13 Jun 2019CMA/1945/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Insurance Company appealed against compensation awarded in a motor accident case. The High Court modified the award, reducing the disfigurement head from Rs.40,000 to Rs.15,000, and permitted withdrawal of excess amount deposited.

What did the court decide?

The compensation award was reduced from Rs.90,000 to Rs.65,000. The appellant/Insurance Company is permitted to withdraw the excess amount deposited.

United India Insurance Co.Ltd Vs Perumal,S/O.Poongavanam — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 13.06.2019 CORAM

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE S. RAMATHILAGAM

¶3

C.M.A.No.1945 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015

¶4

United India Insurance Company Ltd., No.19, Andiappa Gramani Street, Royapuram, Chennai – 6.

¶5

...Appellant/2nd Respondent

¶6

Vs.

¶7

1.Perumal ...Petitioner 2.K.Magendiran

¶8

...1st Respondents/Respondents

¶9

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the award and decree dated 28.01.2015 made in O.P.No.94 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (In the VI Court of Small Causes), Chennai.

¶10

For Appellant : Mr.D.Bhaskaran

¶11

For Respondents: No Appearance

¶12

J U D G M E N T

¶13

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred against the award and decree dated 28.01.2015 made in O.P.No.94 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (In the VI Court of Small Causes), Chennai.

¶14

2.The brief facts leading to the claim application are as follows:

¶15

On 16.08.2011 at about 19.00 hours the petitioner was riding the vehicle bearing Registration No. TN-03-C-0995 at Ennore Express Road, Ellaiamman Koil Street Junction, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai 19. At that time, an auto rickshaw bearing Registration No.TN-04-AF-3052 belonging to the 1^st respondent insured by the 2^nd respondent, driven by its driver, came behind the petitioner in a rash and negligent manner endangering to the public safety and dashed against the petitioner's vehicle, thereby the petitioner sustained grievous injuries for which, the respondents are liable to pay the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.

¶16

3.The respondent/Insurance Company denied the mode of accident and the liability also. Apart from that the age,

¶17

1/4

¶18

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

¶19

occupation and income of the claimant was also very much denied by the respondent, in the absence of any proof. The other contention raised by the respondent/Insurance Company is that the driver of the said vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-04-AF3052 has no driving licence at the time of accident.

¶20

4.The Tribunal, after analysing the evidence and documents placed before the same, has given the findings with the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the Auto rickshaw. Since the evidence of D.W.1 remained unchallenged and it was not denied while assessing the compensation, the Tribunal, after perusing the evidence given by the injured person, and also the documents relating to the nature of injury and the treatment taken, awarded a sum of Rs.90,000/- under the various heads.

¶21

S.No. Head Amount 1 Treatment and other Rs.50,000/expenses 2 Disfigurement in the Rs.40,000/right hand Total Rs.90,000/-

¶22

Aggrieved against the said award, this appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company who is the second respondent herein.

¶23

5.Heard Mr.D.Bhaskaran learned counsel appearing for the appellant. No appearance on behalf of the respondents.

¶24

6.In the grounds of appeal, the appellant/Insurance Company contended that the sum awarded by the Tribunal is very huge because, the injuries sustained by the claimant is only simple injury. That apart, there is no disability in this case since the injuries sustained by the claimant are only simple in nature and in fact, without any disability and in the absence of any examination to that effect, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- itself is highly excessive. Further, the sum awarded under the head in the right hand at Rs.40,000/- is not at all reasonable one. Hence, the award is highly excessive.

¶25

2/4

¶26

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

¶27

From a perusal of records, it is seen that P.W.1 and P.W.2 have spoken about the nature of injury and the disability sustained by the victim due to the accident. It is also observed from the examination of the Doctor that the injuries are simple in nature. The Tribunal has made an elaborate discussion about the nature of the shock sustained by the victim at the time of accident and by observing that the same cannot be measured by money value, sum has awarded a lumpsum at Rs.50,000/- under the head treatment and other expenses. This Court also does not interfere with the said amount. Considering the claimant's age, nature of injuries and treatment. Hence, the said sum of Rs.50,000/- was awarded for Loss of Income, Medical Expenses, Transport to Hospital Charges, Extra Nourishment, Damage to clothes, Loss of Earning and Pain and Sufferings. But considering the injuries sustained by the claimant which one simple in nature and the evidence of Doctor also prove the same, the sum awarded by the Tribunal under the head 'disfigurement in the right hand' is excessive and the same has to be modified. The lumpsum has been awarded the other including the nature of injuries.

¶28

8.Since the above sum of Rs.50,000/- under the head Transportation and other expenses includes the nature of injuries, this Court is of the view that it would be proper to award a sum of Rs.15,000/- instead of Rs.40,000/-. Accordingly, the compensation awarded at Rs.90,000/- by the Tribunal is reduced to Rs.65,000/-.

¶29

9.I n the result,

¶30

(i) this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶31

(ii) It is represented by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant / Insurance Company that they have deposited the entire amount awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, the appellant / Insurance Company is permitted to withdraw the remaining, after deducting the modified amount awarded by this Court. The interest for the modified amount shall be of 7.5% per annum.

¶32

Sub Asst. Registrar

¶33

3/4

¶34

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

¶35

¶36

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (In the VI Court of Small Causes), Chennai.

¶37

2.The VR Section High Court of Madras

¶38

+1 cc to Mr.D.Bhaskaran Advocate sr47925 +1 cc to Mr.V.Velu Advocate sr48927

¶39

C.M.A.No.1945 of 2015
and
M.P.No.1 of 2015
aa25/11/2019

¶40

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

¶41

4/4

United India Insurance Co.Ltd v. Perumal,S/O.Poongavanam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United India Insurance Co.Ltd v. Perumal,S/O.Poongavanam

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

Murugan Vs the Managing Director

N.Karthikeyan, Vs the Managing Director, Mtc., Ltd., Chennai

The Branch Manager, Vs Murugammal

M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Vs Valliyammal

V. Navaneetham Vs M. Sheik Mohameed

Reliance General Insurance Vs Kaliyammal