Dismissed

Branch Manager, v. M.Muniraj

Madras HC27 Jun 2019CMA/2967/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed the Insurance Company's appeals against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award, confirming the Tribunal's findings on negligence and the quantum of compensation, directing the insurer to deposit the awarded amount to the injured claimants. The Court rejected the contention regarding unauthorized passengers in the goods vehicle.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the Insurance Company was directed to deposit the compensation awarded by the Tribunal along with interest and costs to the claimants via RTGS.

Branch Manager, Vs M.Muniraj — 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 Nos.2967,3202 and 3317 of 2003

¶6

Branch Manager United India Insurance Co.Ltd Branch Office, Old Bangalore Road Hosur – 635 109

¶7

¶8

M.Muniraj 2. K.Mahendiran Respondents /Petitioner/ 1^st Respondent in CMA No.2967 of 2003

¶9

Muniappa 2. K.Mahendiran Respondents /Petitioner/ 1^st Respondent in CMA No.3202 of 2003

¶10

Sivaraj 2. K.Mahendiran Respondents /Petitioner/ 1^st Respondent in CMA No.3317 of 2003

¶11

Common Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award and decree, dated 21.03.2002 passed in M.C.O.P.Nos.57 of 2001, 53 of 2001 and 101 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Krishnagiri.

¶12

For Appellant : Mr.N.Vijayaraghavan (for all CMAs)

¶13

For Respondents: Mr.M.Sriram (for all CMAs)

¶14

These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the negligence https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ as well as the quantum awarded by the Tribunal. In

¶15

respect to the accident that took place on 14.06.1999, the claimants/1^st Respondent(s) herein have filed claim petitions claiming sums of Rs.30,000/-, Rs.30,000/- and Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation.

¶16

It is the case of the claimants that they, along with some others, were proceeding in a Tempo bearing Reg.No.KA 052 115 belonging to the 2^nd respondent herein and insured with the appellant herein. The said tempo was driven by its driver / owner, the 2^nd respondent herein. On account of the rash and negligent driving, the tempo capsized due to sudden break applied. As a result of the same, the claimants and the others were thrown out of the vehicle and sustained grievous injuries. A Criminal case came to be registered. For the grievous injuries sustained, the claimants have filed the above said MCOPs.

¶17

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that fixing the liability on the appellant, in a case where the claimants and other victims were unauthorised passengers in goods vehicle, is not in consonance with law. The learned counsel further submitted that the number of persons carried was in violation of the permitted number under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and therefore, the appellant should be exonerated from the liability.

¶18

Per contra, the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent(s)/claimants submitted that the Tribunal has considered all the aspects into consideration and has rendered findings, based on the materials available on record and hence the same do not require any interference.

¶19

This Court has considered the said submission and perused the materials available on record.

¶20

To appreciate the contentions raised, it is necessary to go through the award of the Trial Court. The trial Court framed the following issues:-

¶21

 Whether the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Tempo?  Whether the claimants are entitled to the compensation and if so, to what extent?

¶22

After framing the above issues, the Tribunal has taken into consideration the MCOPs, individually, and has arrived at the compensation. The Tribunal mainly has https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ taken into consideration Ex.P.1 First Information Report,

¶23

Ex.P.3, Insurance Policy and Ex.P.8 Wound Certificate. While dealing with the same, the Tribunal has taken into consideration each and every aspects, in accordance with law and ultimately arrived at the compensation. The Tribunal has also discussed about the evidence adduced by RW1, who has stated that he did not know, on what capacity the claimants have travelled in the Goods vehicle. Based on these things, the Tribunal has concluded that the appellant herein is liable to pay the compensation to the claimants.

¶24

Though the Tribunal has concluded as such, it found that nothing has been elicited by the appellant to prove that the injured are un-authorized passengers. Hence, the findings rendered by the Tribunal are confirmed as such, in addition to pay and recovery issue. 9. As far as the quantum awarded by the Claims Tribunal is concerned, the Tribunal, based on the evidence and materials available on record, has assessed the compensation at Rs.15,000/-,Rs.20,000/and Rs.1,45,000/- respectively.

¶25

This Court is of the opinion that the compensation awarded under each and every heads by the Tribunal are reasonable, weight of evidence and based on settled principles and therefore, there is no ground to interfere with the judgment passed by the Tribunal below. That apart, the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards medical expenses, extra nourishment, attendant charges and damage to cloths / personal materials. If any amount is awarded under those heads, the award passed by the Claims Tribunal cannot be said to be on the higher pedestrian. Hence, this Court concludes that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just, fair and reasonable.

¶26

11.Even assuming that the amount of compensation is lightly higher, considering the fact that the award was of the year 2002 and it has now become inadequate, due to the lapse of time and the value of money during this time, i.e., (the prices of the commodities are escalated and the value of the money is reduced), the award to be utilized in the year 2019 cannot be said to be excessive.

¶27

In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the findings rendered by the Tribunal on negligence as well as on quantum are hereby confirmed as such, in addition to Pay and recovery issue.

¶28

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

¶29

In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal

¶30

is disposed of. No costs. The appellant / Insurance Company shall deposit the entire compensation amount, along with interests and costs, as awarded by the Claims Tribunal (at first), 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 claimants / injured / first respondent(s) in all CMAs herein, forthwith, through RTGS. It is needless to point out that the appellant herein is given liberty to recover the compensation amount to be paid from the owner of the vehicle / 2^nd Respondent herein.

¶31

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶32

//True Copy//

¶33

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶34

srk / vrn

¶35

¶36

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Subordinate Court Krishnagiri

¶37

The Section Officer

¶38

V.R.Section Madras High Court Chennai 104

¶39

+3ccs to Mr.M.B.Gopalan,Advocate SR.No. 54641,54642,54643 C.M.A.Nos.2967,3202 and 3317 of 2003

¶40

mg co

¶41

A.SK(03/10/2019)

¶42

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

Branch Manager, v. M.Muniraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Branch Manager, v. M.Muniraj

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

Dhavamani Vs K.T.Lakshmipathi & Co.

The Oriental Insurance Vs S.Parthasarathy

The Divisional Manager Vs Julian Mary