Partly allowed

The Divisional Manager v. Mr.Munusamy

Madras HC10 Nov 2022CMA/1897/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the insurance company's appeal against a lower tribunal order regarding a road accident claim. While dismissing the jurisdiction plea, the court ordered the insurer to pay Rs. 40,000 as no-fault compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased mother.

What did the court decide?

The appellant insurance company is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 40,000 to the claimants as compensation under the no fault liability clause.

The Divisional Manager Vs Mr.Munusamy — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

C.M.A.No.1897 of 2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 10.11.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA

¶6

C.M.A.No.1897 of 2013

¶7

¶8

M.P.No.1 of 2013

¶9

The Divisional Manager, M/s.National Insurance Co. Ltd., No.19, Officer's Line, 1^st Floor, Opp. Lakshmi Theatre, Vellore ...Appellant Vs

¶10

1.Munusamy

¶11

2.Palani

¶12

3.Muniammal ... Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgement and Decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.420 of 2008 on 04.10.2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal Subordinate – Judge), at Tiruvannamalai – District.

¶14

1/6

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

For Appellants : Mr.J.Chandran For Respondent 1 : Mr.B.Jawahar For Respondents 2 & 3 : No Appearance

¶17

C.M.A.No.1897 of 2013

¶18

JUDGEMENT

¶19

The above appeal is one amongst the batch of appeals arising out

¶20

of the claim petitions from the same accident in C.M.A.No.1831 to 1833 of 2013, which was disposed on 07.08.2020, C.M.A.No.1991 of 2013, which was disposed on 23.01.2020 and C.M.A.No.3360 of 2013, which was disposed on 26.03.2021.

¶21

The above appeal arises against the order in M.C.O.P.No.420 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal Subordinate Court, Tiruvannamalai. The petitioners had claimed compensation for the death of their mother, who had died in a road

¶22

2/6

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

C.M.A.No.1897 of 2013

¶25

accident on 03.08.2004. The accident had occurred when the petitioner's mother along with the others had travelled in a goods carriage vehicle.

¶26

The Insurance Company had taken a plea that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger. Therefore, there is a violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act as well as Policy and they were not liable to compensate the petitioners.

¶27

The Tribunal however had awarded a sum of Rs.45,000/-, which is challenged by the appellant / Insurance Company. In a connected appeal, namely, C.M.A.No.1991 of 2013, this Court had allowed the appeal filed by the Insurance Company. Likewise, C.M.A.Nos.1831 to 1833 of 2013 were also allowed. However, C.M.A.No.3360 of 2013, was dismissed by this Court and the Insurance Company was directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/-

¶28

3/6

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

C.M.A.No.1897 of 2013

¶31

since it was the case of injuries.

¶32

Considering the above, this Court follows the above orders and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed. However, adopting the order in C.M.A.o.3360 of 2013 since it is a case of a fatal accident, the appellant/insurance company is directed to pay compensation of a sum of Rs.40,000/- under the no fault liability clause. The said sum will be deposited, less the amount if already deposited within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. On such deposit being made by the insurance company, the claimants are at liberty to withdraw the same, after following due process of law. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶33

10.11.2022

¶34

kan Index: Yes/No Speaking order/non-speaking order

¶35

4/6

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

C.M.A.No.1897 of 2013

¶38

To,

¶39

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal Subordinate – Judge), at Tiruvannamalai – District.

¶40

5/6

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶42

C.M.A.No.1897 of 2013

¶43

P.T.ASHA, J.,

¶44

kan

¶45

C.M.A.No.1897 of 2013

¶46

10.11.2022

¶47

6/6

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

The Divisional Manager v. Mr.Munusamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Divisional Manager v. Mr.Munusamy

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 P. Dinesh

M.Vijayakumar Vs P.Rajamani

M.Kabaluswami Vs M.G.Meganathan(Deceased)

Minor Sanjay Rep by N.F Mother Vs ,National Insurance Co. Ltd., K.P.Rajamanickam

P. Jagadeesan Vs Vimala

M/S.Sakthi Transports Vs Minor S.Sangeetha