Partly allowed

The New India Assurance v. P. Paul Raj

Madras HC17 Dec 2021CMA(MD)/1374/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the appellant insurance company's appeal against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award in a motor vehicle accident case. The Court held that while both drivers were liable, the Tribunal's conclusion was unsullied, confirming the award of Rs. 3,00,800 with 50-50 liability distribution.

What did the court decide?

The award was confirmed; the appellate respondent and appellant are directed to pay 50% each within six weeks.

The New India Assurance Vs P. Paul Raj — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

RESERVED ON 25.11.2021 DELIVERED ON 17.12.2021

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI

¶6

C.M.A.(MD).No.1374 of 2013

¶7

The New India Assurance Company Limited, Rep. By its Branch Manager, Nagercoil, Agashteeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District.

¶8

Kanyakumari District. ...Appellant/7^th Respondent Vs. 1.P.Paul Raj ...1^st Respondent/Petitioner

¶9

2.S.Sundaresan 3.S.Sornam 4.C.Thomas 5.S.Justin Jose

¶10

6.L.G.Sherinlix

¶11

7.The United India Insurance Company Limited, Rep. By its Branch Manager, Nagercoil, Agastheeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District.

¶12

8.The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Rep. By its Branch Manager, Nagercoil, Agastheeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District.

¶13

...R-2 to R-8/R-1 to R-6 & R-8

¶14

PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, to set aside the award and decree dated 09.11.2012 made in M.CO.P.No.65 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge), Padmanabapuram.

¶15

For Appellant :Mr.B.Vijaya Karthikeyan For R-1 :Mr.C.K.M.Appaji For R-2 :Mr.G.Puhazh Gandhi For R-7 :Mr.M.Veda Singh For R-8 :Mr.C.Jawahar Ravindran For R-3,4, & 6 :No Appearance For R5 :M/sS.Justin Jose

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed to set aside the order and decree, dated 09.11.2012 in M.CO.P.No.65 of 2007 passed by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

1/5

¶19

¶20

the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Subordinate Judge, Padmanabapuram.

¶21

It is a case of accident. On 17.06.2005 at about 08.45 p.m., while the claimant along with four others were travelling towards Nagercoil, Trivandrum to Nagercoil National Highways Road, west to east direction in a Tempo bearing Regn. No.TN-74-B-5612 driven by one Ramesh, while the tempo was coming near Kumarakovil Vilakku, dashed on the back side of a lorry bearing Regn. No. KLV 6309 driven by the 3^rd respondent, after some time a lorry bearing Regn. No. TN-59-D-7325 driven by the 5^th respondent in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn and without observing the traffic rules dashed in the back side of the tempo bearing Regn. No. TN-74-B-5612. Due to the accident, the petitioner and some persons were sustained injuries.

¶22

3.The claimant has filed a petition in M.C.O.P.No.65 of 2007 on the file of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Subordinate Judge, Padmanabapuram, seeking compensation.

¶23

4.Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants two witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 & 2 and marked fourteen documents as Exs.P.1 to P.14 and two witnesses were examined as R.W.1 & R.W2 and Ex.R.1 was marked.

¶24

5.The Tribunal, after considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidences and the arguments of the counsel for the claimant and the insurance company and also on appreciating the evidences on record, held that the accident was occurred only, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 3^rd respondent herein and hence, directed the appellant/insurance company is liable to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,800/-, as compensation.

¶25

6.Heard on either side. Perused the material documents available on record.

¶26

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal has fixed the entire liability upon the appellant. He further submitted that the tribunal failed to note that the appellant insured vehicle namely the lorry was not negligent and responsible for the accident and it was the tempo which dashed against the rear side of the lorry and caused the accident. He further submitted that the tribunal has failed to note that in the connected case in M.C.O.P.No.75 of 2005 on the file of the MACT, Kuzhithurai, the appellant was fully exonerated from the liability and the Judgment was marked as Ex.R.1.

¶27

8.The 1^st respondent is owner of the tempo van. The driver of the lorry bearing Regn. No.KLV 6309 is 3^rd respondent and the owner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶28

2/5

¶29

¶30

of the lorry is 4^th respondent. The 5^th respondent herein is the driver of the lorry bearing Regn. No.TN-59-D-7325 which dashed the tempo after the accident. The owner of the lorry 7325 is 6^th respondent. The 7^th respondent is the insurance company of the tempo van. The appellant/7^th respondent is the insurance company of the lorry bearing Regn.No.KLV 6309. The 8^th respondent is the insurance company of the lorry bearing Regn. No.TN-59-D-7325.

¶31

9.The tribunal has awarded compensation and directed the appellant/insurance company to pay the compensation to the claimant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant/7^th respondent insurance company is before this Court.

¶32

10.Admittedly, the injured was travelled in a Tempo Van not in the Goods vehicle. It dashed on the backside of the lorry bearing regn. No.KLV 6309.

¶33

11.As per the evidence of P.W.1, the lorry bearing Regn. No.KLV 6309 suddenly stopped on the middle of the road. Therefore, the tempo which came behind the lorry dashed on the backside of the lorry. Again, another lorry dashed behind the Tempo.

¶34

12.The driver of the Tempo van died on the spot. The First Information was registered against the driver of the lorry bearing Regn. No. TN-59-D-7325/5^th respondent.

¶35

13.The lorry bearing Regn. No.KLV 6309 driver preferred the complaint. As per the First Information Report, only after the injured were sent to the Hospital through ambulance, the lorry bearing Regn. No. TN-59-D-7325 dashed the Tempo and lorry. Therefore, only after the accident, the claimant was injured, the lorry bearing Regn. No. TN-59-D-7325 dashed the Tempo. Therefore, the lorry bearing Regn. No. TN-59-D-7325 is not responsible for the injuries.

¶36

14.Eventhough, the driver of the lorry bearing Regn. No. TN-59D-7325 admitted the offence and paid penalty, he is not responsible for the injuries.

¶37

15.As per the First Information Report, the driver of the Tempo van drove the vehicle rashly and negligently dashed the lorry bearing Regn.No.KLV 6309. The driver of that lorry is the complainant. He was examined as R.W.2. As per his evidence, the driver of the Tempo Van is also responsible for the accident.

¶38

16.It is revealed from the Motor Vehicle report, front side of the tempo van was totally damaged. (Ex.P.3) the Motor Vehicle Report of lorry bearing Regn. No.KLV 6309 was marked as Ex.P.5. In the lorry both side and front side also damaged. It may dashed with some vehicle and stopped suddenly.

¶39

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

¶40

3/5

¶41

¶42

17.Therefore, both the driver of the tempo van and driver of the lorry bearing Regn.No.KLV 6309 are responsible for the accident. But, the tribunal has fixed liability only on the driver of the lorry bearing Regn.No.KLV 6309.

¶43

18.Both the driver (Tempo and lorry KLV 6309) are liable for the accident. No appeal has been preferred against the quantum. Hence, the 7^th respondent herein and the appellant are liable to pay compensation.

¶44

19.Finally, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition is partly allowed regarding the liability only. The award of compensation Rs.3,00,800/-passed in M.CO.P.No.65 of 2007 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Subordinate Judge, Padmanabapuram, is hereby confirmed. The 7^th respondent herein and the appellant are liable to pay compensation. The 7^th respondent herein/insurance company and the appellant herein/7^th respondent insurance company are directed to deposit 50% each of the award amount of compensation, within a period of six weeks, from the date of receipt of copy of the order. After depositing the compensation amount, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the same. The appellant/insurance company is permitted to withdraw if any excess amount deposited. No Costs.

¶45

// True Copy //

¶46

ksa

¶47

Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the Advocate/litigant concerned.

¶48

¶49

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Subordinate Court, Padmanabapuram

¶50

Copy to

¶51

The Section Officer, V.R.Section Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai

¶52

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

¶53

4/5

¶54

¶55

+1 CC to M/s.B.VIJAY KARTHIKEYAN, Advocate ( SR-39329[F] dated 17/12/2021 )

¶56

C.M.A.(MD).No.1374 of 2013

17.12.2021

SS(CO)

KB(16.02.2022) 5P 5C

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

¶61

5/5

The New India Assurance v. P. Paul Raj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The New India Assurance v. P. Paul Raj

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

United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs the Superintending Engineer

Mr.K.Pitchiamani Vs Tamil Nadu State Transport

Jeganathan, Vs J.Hemalatha

P.E.Industries Vs The Employees state Insurance

National Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs Veeraiyan

The Managing Director, Vs Mariammal