Dismissed

M/S.United India Insurance v. Minor Priyanka

Madras HC20 Apr 2021CMA/2901/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed an appeal filed by an insurance company against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award of Rs.33,000 compensation to a minor victim of a road accident. The court upheld the Tribunal's assessment of negligence and quantum.

What did the court decide?

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

M/S.United India Insurance Vs Minor Priyanka — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 20.04.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶5

C.M.A.NO.2901 OF 2008
AND
M.P.NO.1 OF 2008, 1 OF 2012

¶6

M/s.United India Insurance
Company Limited,
Branch Office,
19, Neela South Street,
Nagapattinam 611 001.

¶7

... Appellant/2nd Respondent
-vs-

¶8

1.Minor Priyanka
(Minor represented by her mother and
next friend Selvi)

¶9

...Respondent/Petitioner

¶10

2.M.Gnanasundari

¶11

 ... Respondent/1st Respondent

¶12

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, against the Judgment and Decree dated
05.03.2008 made in O.P.No.4 of 2006 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge) at Mannargudi.

¶13

For Appellant : Mr.Raghavan

¶14

For Respondents: M/s.V.Raghupathi for R1
 R2 Exparte

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against
the Judgment and Decree dated 05.03.2008 made in O.P.No.4 of
2006 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Subordinate Judge) at Mannargudi.

¶17

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

¶18

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred
to hereunder according to their litigative status before the
Tribunal

¶19

3. The case of the claimant is that on 01.05.2005 when
the claimant along with the parents were proceeding to temple on
the left hand side of the road, from the opposite side, the
Motor Cycle driven in a rash and negligent manner by the rider
of the Motor Cycle and dashed against the claimant and her
parents. Due to the said accident the minor claimant sustained
grievous injuries on her tooth and also on her abdomen and
abrasions all over her body. Immediately she was taken to
Government Hospital, Thiruthuraipoondi and she had taken
treatment as in-patient. Thereafter, she had taken treatment in
a Private Hospital. In fact, FIR was registered as against the
rider of the Motor Cycle for the offence under Sections 279 and
337 of IPC and the rider of the Motor Cycle is also convicted in
S.T.C.No.1163 of 2005 by the Judgment dated 16.11.2005. Due to
the said accident minor Priyanka was not able to continue her
studies and the academic year was wasted. Therefore, she filed
claim petition claiming compensation for Rs.2,00,000/-.

¶20

4. Resisting the same, the first respondent filed a
counter stating that accident took place only due to the rash
and negligent driving of the insurer. The rider of the Motor
Cycle who had driven the Motor Cycle by following all traffic
rules in a lawful manner. Only because of the petitioner's act
the accident took place and as such the second respondent is not
held to be liable for any compensation claimed by the claimant.

¶21

5. On the side of the petitioner P.W.1 and P.W.2 were
examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 were marked. On the side of the
second respondent R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and no exhibits
were marked. On the basis of the evidence available on records
and also considering the submission made by the learned counsel
appearing on either side, the Tribunal had fastened the
negligence on the part of the rider of the Motor Cycle and
awarded compensation for a sum of Rs.33,000/- (Rupees Thirty
Three Thousand only). Aggrieved by the same, the appellant
filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

¶22

6. Heard Mr.Raghavan, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and Mr.V.Ragupathi, learned counsel appearing for the
first respondent.

¶23

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

¶24

7. The petitioner along with her parents while
proceeding to temple on 01.05.2005 at 06.00 P.M, the Motor Cycle
driven by the rider of the Motor Cycle in a rash and negligent
manner and dashed as against the petitioner and her parents.
Therefore the first respondent / claimant sustained grievous
injuries and also she lost her tooth. She also sustained injury
on her abdomen along with abrasions all over her body. She was
admitted in the Government Hospital and thereafter, she also had
taken treatment in the Private Hospital, her disability was
assessed by P.W.2 / Doctor at 20%, since her teeth was broken
and as such it is permanent disability. Even then the Tribunal
awarded a sum of Rs.1,000/- per percentage. Therefore, this
Court finds no points for reducing the compensation as awarded
by the Tribunal.

¶25

8. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is
dismissed. No order as to costs. Consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

Assistant Registrar(CJ Conf)

¶28

// True Copy //

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶30

rna

¶31

To

¶32

1. The Subordinate Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mannargudi.

¶33

2. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, Madras High Court, Chennai.

¶34

+1cc to M/s.G.Devi, Advocate, S.R.No.23911

¶35

C.M.A.No.2901 of 2008
and M.P.No.1 of 2008, 1 of 2012

¶36

PP(CO)

¶37

RLP(20/10/2021)

¶38

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

M/S.United India Insurance v. Minor Priyanka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.United India Insurance v. Minor Priyanka

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

Amarnath Vs Manobalan

Sugumar Vs S.Hemamalini

S.Sakthivel Vs K.Kulandaivel

New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs R.Thilagam

Thilagam Vs R.Arunthathi

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kaliyammal