Dismissed

The United India Insurance Co. v. Manikavasagar

Madras HC23 Feb 2021CMA/2318/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed an appeal filed by The United India Insurance Company Ltd. against a motor accident claims tribunal award. The court held that the appeal regarding the claimant's lack of a valid driving licence was not sustainable.

What did the court decide?

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal dismissed; connected miscellaneous petition closed; no costs awarded.

The United India Insurance Co. Vs Manikavasagar — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated 23.02.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶5

CMA.No.2318 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014

¶6

The United India Insurance Company Ltd. 13A, Nethaji Road, Manjakuppam, Cuddalore.

¶7

...Appellant/2^nd respondent

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Manikkavasagar ...1st respondent/ claimant 2. R.Vetrivelan ...2^nd respondent/1^st respondent

¶10

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the decree and judgment dated 28.03.2014 passed in MCOP No.2255 of 2009 by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuddalore.

¶11

For Appellant : Mr.D.Bhaskaran

¶12

J U D G M E N T

¶13

Aggrieved over the orders passed by the Tribunal, the appellant/ insurance company has filed the present appeal challenging the liability as well as the quantum of compensation.

¶14

The claimant has filed a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident that took place on 18.05.2009

¶15

The brief case of the claimants is as follows: On 18.05.2009 at about 7.00 p.m. the claimant was riding his motorcycle along Vadalur Kurinjipadi Road and while nearing Vadalur, a paddy harvester bearing registration No.TN-21-Q-4857 coming from opposite side, hit the motorcycle, thereby, he sustained injuries. According to the claimant, the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the harvester was the cause of accident, and since the first respondent insured his vehicle with the second respondent, both of them are liable to pay compensation to them.

¶16

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

¶17

The second respondent/ Insurance Company resisted the claim petition by filing counter affidavit.

¶18

Before Tribunal, on the side of the claimants, the

¶19

first claimant and one another witness were examined as PW1 and PW2 respectively and Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 were marked. On the side of the insurance company, no oral and documentary evidence was adduced.

¶20

After analysing the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,21,968/- as compensation to the claimant under various heads as extracted hereunder.

¶21

Sl	Heads	Amount in
No		Rs.
1	Disability (3300 x 12 x 16 x 13%)	82368
2	Loss of future income 3300x2	6,600
3	Pain and sufferings	20000
4	Medical expenses	5,000
5	Transportation charges	5,000
6	Extra Nourishment	3,000
	Total	1,21,968

¶22

Aggrieved over the orders passed by the Tribunal, the insurance company has filed the present appeal.

¶23

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

¶24

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that there is no liability as against the insurance company to pay compensation to the claimant, since he did not possess valid driving licence at the time of accident. He further submitted that as per Ex.P5 Accident Register, he was under influence of alcohol and that the motor cycle drew by the claimant had no insurance cover on the date of accident. Therefore, it is contended by him that the claimant is a tortfeaser and the claim of tort-feaser is not maintainable and hence, the award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside.

¶25

At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that in an identical case in CMA No.2547 of 2013, this court by order dated 08.02.2021 has decided that the grounds raised by the appellant/insurance company is not sustainable. The relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder.

¶26

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

¶27

It is brought to the notice of this court that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sunil Kumar and another (Civil Appeal No.9694 of 2013, dated 24.11.2017) in paragraph 9, has held that in a proceeding under Sec.163-A of the Act, it is open for the insurer to raise any defence of negligence on the part of the victim.

¶28

The aforesaid judgment is squarely apply to the facts of the case in hand. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant cannot dispute the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, in the light of the decision cited supra, the grounds raised by the appellant/insurance company is not sustainable. The appellant has no grievance in so far as the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶29

For the reasons stated above, this court is of the view that the Tribunal has rightly passed the award in favour of the claimant. Hence, there is no warrant to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal.

¶30

In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶31

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS IV)

¶32

//True Copy//

¶33

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶34

mst

¶35

¶36

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, The Principal Subordinate Court, Cuddalore.

¶37

The Section Officer, V.R. Section, Madras High Court, Chennai-104.

¶38

CMA. No.2318 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014

¶39

SRA[co]

¶40

NSK 15/09/2021

¶41

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

The United India Insurance Co. v. Manikavasagar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The United India Insurance Co. v. Manikavasagar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

United India Insurance Co. Vs Rathinasamy

V.B.Mark Jayaseelan Paul Vs J.Radhakrishnan

The G.M.,United India Ins., Co., Ltd. Vs Mumtaj Begam

E.Vasudevan (Minor) Vs R.Kamaraj

The Managing Director Vs Tmt. Kalpana

Chinnappa Chetty Vs Raghupathy Gowda