Dismissed

Divisional Manger v. P Mohan

Madras HC13 Sept 2019CMA/2915/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This civil miscellaneous appeal was filed by an insurance company challenging a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award of compensation to an injured claimant. The High Court rejected the contention regarding the rider's license validity and upheld the tribunal's order, dismissing the appeal and directing the insurer to deposit the awarded amount with interest.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed; the tribunal's order is upheld and the appellant is directed to deposit the compensation with interest within four weeks.

Divisional Manger Vs P Mohan — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 13.09.2019 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA CMA.No.2915 of 2006 and MP No.2 of 2006 and CMP No.18918 of 2019

¶2

Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Bharathi Road, Cuddalore.

¶3

...Appellant/2nd Respondent .Vs. 1.P.Mohan 2.Ramesh Kumar ... Respondents/Petitioner/ 1st Respondent

¶4

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the decree and Judgment dated 19.01.2006 passed in MCOP.No.1272 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal Sub-Judge), Cuddalore.

¶5

For Appellant : Mr.C.Ramesh Babu For Respondents : Mr.G.Jayachandran for R1 No Appearance for R2

¶6

JUDGMENT

¶7

The appellant / New India Assurance Co. Ltd., is the 2^nd respondent in MCOP No.1272 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge / Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuddalore.

¶8

The 1^st respondent filed the above said claim petition in MCOP No.1272 of 2004 under Section 166(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident that took place on 10.04.2004 when he was walking with his wife along Vadugapalayam bus stand. According to the claimant, a speeding motor cycle bearing Registration No.TN 31 D 822 belonging to the 2^nd respondent and insured with the appellant hit him, as a result of which he sustained injuries all over his body. His further contention is that the rash and negligent riding of the rider of motor cycle was the cause of the accident and that since the said vehicle was insured with the appellant, both the owner of

¶9

1/3

¶10

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

¶11

the vehicle and the Insurance Company are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to him.

¶12

The learned Principal Subordinate Judge / Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, after analysing the evidence on record awarded a compensation of Rs.1,58,700/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum to the claimant and directed the owner of the two-wheeler as well as the Insurance Company to pay the claim amount jointly and severally. Aggrieved over the orders passed by the Tribunal, the present appeal is filed.

¶13

Mr. C.Ramesh Babu, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the Tribunal cannot fix the liability on the Insurance Company, when the rider of the motor cycle bearing Registration No.TN-31-D-822 was not possessed of a valid driving license on the date of accident.

¶14

Per contra, Mr.G.Jeyachandran, learned counsel appearing for the claimant / 1^st respondent contended that the rider of the motor cycle was, in fact, in possession of valid driving license and a copy of the same was also produced before this Court. Therefore, the Tribunal was right in concluding that the owner of the two-wheeler as well as the present appellant are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant.

¶15

As regards the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal had awarded Rs.1,58,700/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. The claimant had sustained a fracture on his shoulders and the Doctor Mr.Sivasubramanian (PW2) had assessed the partial permanent disability as 45%.

¶16

It is an admitted fact that the claimant was a driver by profession and the Tribunal, after considering all the aspects of the case had awarded a compensation of Rs.1,58,700/- to the claimant. The award passed by the Tribunal cannot be said to be exorbitant and therefore, the appeal filed by the Insurance company is liable to be dismissed.

¶17

8. In the result,

¶18

(i) The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. (ii) The order passed by the tribunal is upheld.

¶19

2/3

¶20

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

¶21

(iii) The appellant, New India Assurance Company Limited is directed to deposit the entire compensation awarded by the tribunal i.e., Rs.1,58,700/- (less the amount already deposited) together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit to the credit of MCOP.No.1272 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Principal Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶22

(iv) On such deposit being made, claimant is at liberty to withdraw the same after following due process of law.

¶23

(v) Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶24

Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (Ad I)
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
uma
To
1.The Principal Subordinate Judge,
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Cuddalore.
2.The Section Officer
VR Section
High Court Madras
+1 cc to Mr.G.Jayachandran Advocate sr28826
+1 cc to Mr.C.Ramesh Babu Advocate sr78805

¶25

CMA.No.2915 of 2006 sr(co) aa03/03/2020

¶26

3/3

¶27

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

Divisional Manger v. P Mohan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Divisional Manger v. P Mohan

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

The Managing Director Vs Gnanasekaran

Thenational Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Varadharaj

Royal Sundaram Alliance Vs Subramanian (Died)

The Branch Manger Vs v. Ashokan

Branch Manger Vs Saravanan

M. Senthilkumar Vs R. Raghupathy