Dismissed

The Divisional Manager v. Tmt.Amirtham

Madras HC24 Feb 2021CMA/1242/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The insurance company appealed challenging compensation awarded to injured vegetable vendors. The court dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence to overturn the Tribunal's finding that premium was paid for the specific vendors who claimed.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. The appellant is directed to deposit Rs. 24,000 with interest at 7.5% p.a. within four weeks.

The Divisional Manager Vs Tmt.Amirtham — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated 24.02.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶5

CMA.No.1242 of 2013 and
M.P.No.1 of 2013

¶6

The Divisional Manager,

¶7

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
Motor third party claims office,
No.60, 70 Sheikpet Nadu Street,
Kancheepuram, 631 501.

¶8

 ... Appellant/2nd respondent
Vs.

¶9

1. Amirtham ... first respondent/ 3rd Petitioner
2. V. Jayakanthan ... second respondent/ first respondent

¶10

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the decree
and judgment dated 12.04.2012 passed in MCOP No.251 of 2007 by
the Principal Subordinate Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Chengalpattu.

¶11

For Appellant: Mr. J.Chandran
For respondents : No appearance for R1
 Notice served to R2.

¶12

Aggrieved over the award passed by the Tribunal, the
insurance company has filed the present appeal challenging the
liability.

¶13

2. The claimant has filed a claim petition before the
Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the injuries
sustained by her in a road accident that took place on
04.04.2005.

¶14

3. The brief case of the claimants is as follows: The
claimant was a vegetable vendor and on 04.04.2005 at about 8.00
hours, the claimant was travelling in a tempo van bearing

¶15

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

¶16

registration No.TN-22-C-1356 from her Village to Koyambedu along
with the other vegetable vendors and while nearing Andal-Azhagar
Engineering College at Mamandur Village, the driver of the tempo
van drove the vehicle rashly and negligently, thereby the front
tyre of the tempo van busted and due to the impact, the
petitioner and other vendors sustained multiple injuries and
immediately, the petitioner was admitted to Government Hospital,
Chengalpattu and was treated as inpatient from 04.04.2005 to
07.04.2005 and then taking treatment in Government Hospital as
well in the Private Hospital. According to the claimant, the
rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tempo van was
the cause of accident and since the first respondent insured his
vehicle with the second respondent/ insurance company, both of
them are liable to pay compensation.

¶17

4. The claim petition was resisted by the Insurance
company by filing counter affidavit.

¶18

5. Before Tribunal, three claim petitions in MCOP
No.247, 250, and 251 of 2007 were filed by three persons, who
sustained injuries in the same accident that took place on
04.04.2005 and on the side of the claimants, three witnesses
were examined as PW1 to PW3 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 were marked and
on the side of the respondents, one witness was examined and
Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 were marked. As far as the claimant in the
instant case is concerned, she filed MCOP No.251 of 2007 and she
was examined as PW3 and Ex.P5 to Ex.P8 were marked.

¶19

6. After analysing the evidence on record, the Tribunal
has awarded a sum of Rs.24,000/- as compensation to the
claimant under various heads as extracted hereunder.

¶20

`Sl`	`Heads`	`Amount in`
`No`		`Rs.`
`1`	`Loss of earning 3000x3`	`9,000`
`2`	`Transportation charges`	`2,000`
`3`	`Extra Nourishment`	`1,000`
`4`	`Pain and sufferings`	`12,000`
	`Total`	`24,000`

¶21

Aggrieved over the Award passed by the Tribunal, the present
appeal has been fled by the insurance company.

¶22

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

¶23

7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the
counsel for the claimant and I have perused the materials on
record.

¶24

8.Thelearnedcounselappearingforthe
appellant/insurance company submitted that the on the date of
accident, numerous persons were travelled in the tempo goods van
and hence, they are the gratuitous passengers, which is the
violation of the terms and conditions of the policy as well as
the conditions of Permit and Registration Certificate and
therefore the Insurance company is not liable to pay
compensation to the gratuitous passengers and hence, the orders
passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside.

¶25

9. Now the point for consideration is whether the
insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the claimant.

¶26

 10. Point

¶27

The only contention of the appellant/ insurance company
is that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation,
since, on the date of accident, numerous persons were travelled
in the tempo van as gratuitous passengers and hence, the
insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. The
Tribunal in its findings has discussed that “ as per the
insurance policy, premium has been paid for 5 vendors , however,
only 4 persons have filed petition for compensation and hence,
the contention of the insurance company that the claimants are
not entitled for compensation is unsustainable ”. To disprove
the above findings, the insurance company has not filed any
materials before this court. Therefore, the above findings of
the Tribunal does not warrant any interference by this court.
The appellant has not raised any ground against the quantum of
compensation. Accordingly, the appeal fails. The point is
answered accordingly.

¶28

11. In the result,

¶29

(i) The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No
costs. The connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶30

(ii) The appellant/insurance company is directed to
deposit the compensation of Rs.24,000/- with interest at the
rate of 7.5.% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the
date of deposit, less the amount if already deposited, within a

¶31

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

¶32

period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.

¶33

(iii) On such deposit being made by the insurance company,
the claimant is entitled to withdraw the same, after following
due process of law.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

Assistant Registrar (CS-III)

¶36

// True Copy //

¶37

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶38

mst

¶39

To

¶40

1. The Principal Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu.

¶41

2. Section Officer, V.R. Section, Madras High Court, Chennai – 104.

¶42

+1CC to Mr.J.Chandran, Advocate, SR.No. 11469

¶43

CMA. No.1242 of 2013
 and M.P.No.1 of 2013

¶44

GMR(CO)

¶45

B.VC (21/09/2021)

¶46

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

The Divisional Manager v. Tmt.Amirtham

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Divisional Manager v. Tmt.Amirtham

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 Tmt. Kalpana

Chinnappa Chetty Vs Raghupathy Gowda

T.S.Pradeep Vs the Managing Director

M.Prema Vs K.Balasundaram

The Branch Manager Vs Shanthi

Manini Vs M/S Paramount Heavy Carriers