The Single Judge dismissed an appeal filed by an insurance company challenging an award of Rs. 2.07 lakhs for motor accident injuries. The Court upheld the Tribunal's finding that the car driver was negligent and rejected the claim of excessive compensation.
The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed with no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.12.2020
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN
C.M.A.No.1653 of 2020
and
CMP.No.12175 of 2020
M/s. Bajaj Allianz General
Insurance Company Ltd.,
Door No.11, (Office No.6A),
Peoples Park, 3rd Floor,
Govt. Arts. College Road,
Coimbatore-641 018. ...Appellant / 2nd respondent
Vs.
1.C.Govindarajan,
S/o. Chinnasamy,
No.66/2, Bhuvaneshwari Nagar,
Thekkupalayam,
Coimbatore. ...1st Respondent / Petitioner
2.A.Kandasamy,
S/o. Angamuthu,
8/1, Kannan Nagar, 1st Street,
Ganapathy West,
Coimbatore. ...2nd Respondent / 1st Respondent
PRAYER :- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal preferred under Section 173
of Motor Vehicles Act against the Award and decree dated
14.08.2019 made in MCOP No.1487 of 2016 on the file of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal Special Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.
The insurance company, challenging the award passed by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Special Subordinate Judge,
Coimbatore in MCOP. No.1487 of 2016 dated 14.08.2019, has filed
this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
2. The case of the claimant before the Tribunal is that
on 18.09.2016 at about 11.45 a.m. he was riding a motor cycle
bearing Regn. No.TN-37 AK-0705 on the Coimbatore-Mettupalayam
Road, while crossing the road from east to west, a car bearing
Regn. No.TN-38 BL 6070 driven by the 1st respondent herein came
from south to north in a rash and negligent manner and dashed
against the claimant's motorcycle, in which he has sustained
grievous injuries. Immediately, he was taken to K.R. Hospital,
Coimbatore and undergone treatment for five days. At the time of
accident, he was working as a Security Guard in Sky Tech,
Coimbatore and getting a monthly income of Rs.8000/-. Due to the
injury sustained in the accident, he was not able to continue
his duty and claiming a compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-, he has
filed the claim petition before the Tribunal.
3. The 1st respondent / owner of the vehicle remain
exparte. The appellant insurance company has contested the claim
petition on the ground that the accident was taken place due to
the rash and negligent driving of the claimant C.Govindarajan,
who has dashed against the car. Hence, no negligence would be
fixed on the driver of the car. Even though a criminal case has
been registered against the 1st respondent, after investigation,
the police has closed the F.I.R. as mistake of fact. The
insurance company has disputed the monthly income of claimant
and contended that the compensation claimed by the claimant is
highly excessive.
4. Before the tribunal, the claimant has examined himself
as P.W.1 and marked as many as 6 documents as Ex.P1 to P6. On
the side of respondent, the 2nd respondent therein has examined
one witness and marked as many as 2 documents as Ex.R1 and R2.
5. The Tribunal, after considering the materials
available on record, has held that the accident has been taken
place due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of 1st
respondent. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the
Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards grievous
injury, a sum of Rs.12,000/- towards loss of income, a sum of
Rs.45,009/- towards medical bills, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
towards pain and sufferings, a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards extra
nourishment, a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards transport expenses,
and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards damage to clothing and articles.
Thus, totally, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,07,009/-
as compensation. Now, aggrieved over the same, the appellant
insurance company is before this Court with this appeal.
6. Mr.M.B.Raghavan, learned counsel appearing for
appellant insurance company would submit that the accident was
taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of claimant.
It is only the claimant under the influence of alcohol driven
the two wheeler in a rash and negligent manner and dashed
against a car. A criminal case registered by the police against
the 1st respondent was closed as mistake of fact, and the
appellant insurance company is not liable to pay compensation.
In respect of quantum of compensation, the claimant has only
suffered a minor injury, for which, a sum of Rs.1 lakhs was
awarded towards pain and suffering and a sum of Rs.25,000/- was
awarded for grievous injuries suffered by the claimant. As the
appellant insurance company is not liable to pay compensation,
liability cannot be fixed on the appellant insurance company.
7. I have heard and considered the rival submissions made
by the learned counsel appearing for appellant as well as
respondents 1 to 3 and perused the records.
8. The insurance company mainly disputed its liability on
the ground that the accident was taken place due to the rash and
negligent driving of the claimant. From the perusal of records,
it could be seen that the accident has been taken place while
the claimant crossing the main road in a two wheeler, wherein
the offending car came from south to north and hit the
motorcycle. Immediately, the F.I.R. was given against the 1st
respondent, driver of a car. Even though it is contended that
the claimant was under the influence of alcohol, there is no
evidence available on record to support the same. That apart,
the driver of a car was also not examined to prove that only due
to the negligent driving of claimant, the accident has been
taken place. Merely because, the criminal case has been closed
as mistake of fact, it cannot be a reason for letting off the
driver to hold that the accident was taken place due to the
negligence of the claimant. The Tribunal, after considering all
those materials, has rightly held that the accident has been
taken place due to the negligent driving of a car. So far as
quantum of compensation is concerned, the age of claimant was 57
years and he was working as a security guard, he has sustained
injury in the left eye and also sustained injuries through out
the body. After the accident, he was admitted in the hospital
and taken treatment for five days and medical bills were
produced for a sum of Rs.45,009/-. Considering all those
circumstances, the Tribunal has rightly awarded a sum of
Rs.2,07,009/-. Hence, it cannot be held as excessive and there
is no reason to interfere with the same. Therefore, this C.M.A.
is liable to be dismissed.
9. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Civil
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
// True Copy //
Sub Assistant Registrar
rpp
To
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Special Subordinate Judge,
Coimbatore.
Copy To
The Section Officer,
V.R. Section,
High Court of Madras.
C.M.A.No.1653 of 2020
and
C.M.P. No. 12175 of 2020
RP(CO)
RVM(09/09/2021)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal correctly held that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the car driver.
Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was excessive considering the claimant's age and injuries.
M/s. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.
1.C. Govindarajan
2.A. Kandasamy
1.C. Govindarajan
V. BHARATHIDASAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court