Dismissed

The Oriental Insurance v. S.Parthasarathy

Madras HC27 Jun 2019CMA/2048/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award, the Madras High Court rejected the insurance company's contention that lack of criminal investigation precluded liability and upheld the Tribunal's quantum of compensation based on medical evidence as a logical inference of negligence.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed, and the insurance company was directed to deposit the entire compensation amount with interest and costs.

The Oriental Insurance Vs S.Parthasarathy — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 27.06.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN

¶5

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2048 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008

¶6

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd 59, Raja Street Gobichettipalayam Appellant / 2^nd Respondent Vs

¶7

S.Parthasarathy 2. K.Elangovan Respondents / claimant / 1^st Respondent

¶8

Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award and decree, dated 10.12.2007 passed in M.C.O.P.No.973 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Fast Track Court No.IV), Additional District Court, Coimbatore at Tiruppur.

¶9

For Appellant : Mr.S.Manohar J U D G M E N T

¶10

The Insurance Company has filed this appeal. The appellant is the 2^nd respondent, the 1^st respondent is the claimant and the 2^nd respondent herein is the 1^st respondent before the Tribunal.

¶11

The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

¶12

On 23.08.2001 at about 02.00pm, when the 1^st respondent herein was riding his TVS Suzuki bearing Reg.No.TN 38 Z 4147 along with his friend by name Doss as a pillion rider, from Palladam to Tiruppur on the North South main Road, a bike bearing Reg.No.TN 37 F 7545 came from the opposite direction, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the 1^st respondent's bike. Due to the said accident, the 1^st respondent sustained grievous injuries and subsequently, he filed a Claim petition before the Tribunal. After elaborate trial, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.44,250/- under the following heads:-

¶13

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

¶14

S.No	Head	Compensation (in.Rs.)
1.	Towards Medical Expenses	17,250.00
2.	Towards Transportation Expenses	1,000.00
3.	Towards Extra Nourishment	1,000.00
4.	Towards injuries	20,000.00
5.	Towards pain and sufferings	5,000.00
	Total	44,250.00

¶15

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

¶16

The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that, in pursuance of the First Information Report filed by the police, no investigation was done and no charge sheet was filed; hence, fastening the liability on the appellant is incorrect. The next contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the award passed by the Tribunal under all the heads is disproportionate to the injuries sustained by the claimant.

¶17

A perusal of the award of the Tribunal would go to show that the complaint was filed on 29.01.2001 i.e., nearly after one month from the date of accident. It is stated in the First Information Report that the 1^st respondent herein as well as one Doss, who was the pillion rider, sustained injuries and both of them were admitted in United Hospital, Coimbatore for treatment and after discharge, the 1^st respondent was attending the injured Doss in the Hospital and thereafter, he filed a complaint. In the absence of direct or contra evidence, it was held that the accident had occurred on account of negligent driving of the rider of the two wheeler and the point was answered in favour of the claimant and against the Insurance Company. This Court finds no reason to interfere with such finding, since it is based on logical inference.

¶18

Further, while assessing the compensation, the Tribunal has taken into consideration Ex.A.2 Wound Certificate and Ex.A.3 Discharge Summary, which are the twin documents, normally, produced by the claimant to satisfy his claim. The Tribunal has meticulously rendered findings on those documents, which in the considered view of this Court, is perfectly valid and justified one. Thus the findings on negligence as well as quantum rendered by the Tribunal are confirmed as such.

¶19

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

¶20

In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. The appellant / Insurance Company shall deposit the entire compensation amount, along with interests and costs, as awarded by the Claims Tribunal, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of four weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit being made, the Tribunal is directed to transfer the deposited amount to the Savings Bank Account of the claimant / injured / first respondent herein, through RTGS, within one week thereafter. Consequently, the connected MP is closed.

¶21

s/d-
Assistant Registrar(CS VII)
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
srk / vrn
To
1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/(Fast Track Court No.IV),
Additional District Court, Coimbatore at Tiruppur
2. The Section Officer
V.R.Section
Madras High Court
Chennai 104
+1 CC to Mr.S.Manohar, Advocate sr 53381.
C.M.A.No.2048 of 2008
& M.P.No.1 of 2008
KJ(CO)
SP(02/03/2020)

¶22

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

The Oriental Insurance v. S.Parthasarathy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Oriental Insurance v. S.Parthasarathy

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

M/S.United India Insurance Co. Vs M/S.Mathuswamy, Thottipalayam

The Manager Vs Smt Malar

The Superintendent Vs K Ganesan

Branch Manager, Vs M.Muniraj

Dhavamani Vs K.T.Lakshmipathi & Co.

The Divisional Manager Vs Julian Mary