Dismissed

United India Insurance Co. v. Angammal

Madras HC20 Apr 2021CMA/855/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this appeal against a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award, the Insurance Company challenged liability fixed on a lorry driver. The High Court found the Tribunal's conclusion correct, as the driver parked without precautionary measures away from designated spots, causing a two-wheeler to hit the stationary vehicle. The appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

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

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

 DATED : 20.04.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICEKRISHNAN RAMASAMY

¶5

C.M.A.NO.855 OF 2018
AND
C.M.P.NO.7063 OF 2018

¶6

United India Insurance Company Limited,
Aurangabad, Maharashtra State.

¶7

 ...Appellant/II Respondent

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1. Angammal

¶10

2. Minor Poovarasan

¶11

3. Deivanai

¶12

4. Minor Kavitha

¶13

5. Minor Vennila [Minors 2, 4 & 5 are represented by their NF Angammal]

¶14

... Respondents 1 to 5/Petitioners 1 to 5

¶15

6. M/s. Trans Global Carriers (P) Limited, C-16, MIDC, Waluj, Opp : Universal Luggage, Aurangabad, Maharashtra State.

¶16

... VI Respondent/I Respondent

¶17

Prayer:

¶18

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of
Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and decree dated
13.08.2015 made in M.C.O.P.No.270 of 2014 on the file of the
MACT (Spl. District Court) at Dharmapuri (MCOP No.268/2013-
Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri).

¶19

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

¶20

For Appellant : Ms.I.Malar
For RR 1 to 5: Mr.A.Ilaya Perumal
For R6: Notice sent by Tapal
 yet received/unserved.

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

Challenging the negligence and liability fixed by the
Tribunal, the Appellant/Insurance Company has preferred the
present appeal.

¶23

2. The deceased Mathesh was riding a two wheeler bearing
Registration No.TN-29-AL-1579 on 16.01.2013 around 3.30 p.m. on
the Dharmapuri-Salem Highway near Thombarakampatti, Adyar
Anandabhavan. At that time, a container lorry bearing
Registration No.MH-20-BT-4119, driven by its driver, suddenly
stopped the lorry, as a result of which, the rider of the two
wheeler dashed on the rear side of the lorry, resulting in the
accident that had occurred on the Highways. Due to the said
accident, the said Mathesh sustained grievous injuries, and was
taken to the Hospital and he died after some treatment on the
same day. At the time of occurrence, the age of the deceased
was 23 years. He was working as J.C.P. Machine Operator and he
was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month and had as a good
heath condition.

¶24

3. The contention of the appellant/Insurance Company
herein, is that the accident had occurred due to the rash and
negligent driving on the part of the rider of the two wheeler.
The deceased Mathesh, the rider of the two wheeler, without
noticing the parked vehicle, came and hit the parked vehicle and
thereby, he sustained grievous injuries and was taken to the
Hospital where he died after some treatment. Therefore, the
cause of the accident is not the driver of the lorry, but the
rider of the two wheeler itself. Under these circumstances, the
Tribunal has wrongly fixed the negligence and liability on the
driver of the lorry and accordingly, the award passed by the

¶25

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

¶26

Tribunal is liable to be set aside.

¶27

4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents 1 to 5/Claimants contended that, without any
precautionary measures, the driver of the lorry parked the
vehicle and therefore, the deceased could not come to the
conclusion that whether it was a parked vehicle or it was
moving. Further, the driver of the lorry suddenly applied brake
and in such a situation, the rider of the two wheeler has no
other option, but to move the vehicle. Hence, he sustained
grievous injuries and was taken to the hospital for treatment.
As the treatment failed, consequently, the deceased passed away.
Thus, the negligence and liability was fixed, correctly by the
Tribunal, on the part of the driver of the lorry. There is no
merit on the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing
for the appellant/Insurance Company, accordingly, the present
appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶28

5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused
the materials placed on record.

¶29

6. The accident had occurred on 16.01.2013 around 3.30
p.m. and on behalf of the claimant, one Mr.Parthiban was
examined as PW3, Special Sub Inspector of Police, who deposed
stating that the lorry was parked on the Highways Road and that
is not the parking place of the lorry and the said vehicle was
not parked in the place provided for taking rest for the
drivers. Further, he stated that, at the time of parking the
vehicle, if at all there is any emergency, the driver should
have adopted precautionary measures so as to bring into the
knowledge of all other moving vehicle drivers about the parked
vehicle. Apparently, no such precautionary measures had been
taken by the driver of the lorry. Thus accident occurred due to
the negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry.

¶30

7. That apart, no one was examined on behalf of the
Insurance Company. Under these circumstances, this Court is of
the view that after analysing all these facts, the Tribunal
arrived at a correct conclusion, there is no error on this part
of conclusion of the Tribunal. I do not find any substance in
the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/Insurance Company. Thus, there is no merit in the
present appeal and it is liable to be dismissed.

¶31

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

¶32

8. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is
dismissed. No order as to costs. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

Assistant Registrar(CS-VI)

¶35

// True Copy //

¶36

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶37

msm

¶38

To

¶39

1. The Special District Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,

¶40

Dhamapuri.

¶41

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

¶42

+1cc to Mr.A.Ilaya Perumal, Advocate, S.R.No.24046

¶43

C.M.A.No. 855 of 2018 and
C.M.P.No.7063 of 2018

¶44

AD(CO)

¶45

RLP(15/09/2021)

¶46

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

United India Insurance Co. v. Angammal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United India Insurance Co. v. Angammal

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

N.Annakkili Vs 1.DAKSHINAMURTHY

The Special Tahsildar Vs Pushpavathi Bai

The Special Tahsildar Vs Parvathibai

Kusum Chandak Alias Vs the Oriental Ins., Co., Ltd., Chennai

S.Lakshmi, W/O Late Suresh, Vs R.R.Ramesh

Cholamandalam Ms General Vs Venkatesan