Dismissed

Shriram General Insurance Co.Ltd v. Sulochana

Madras HC17 Mar 2022CMA/55/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Insurance Company appealed against an award by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal attributing liability to the tanker lorry driver. The High Court held that since the Tribunal correctly identified the tanker driver's negligence and the appeal rested solely on the ground of negligence, no further issues survived. The appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by the Insurance Company and the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition were dismissed and closed respectively.

Shriram General Insurance Co.Ltd Vs Sulochana — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 17.03.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

¶5

C.M.A. No.55 of 2022 and C.M.P.No.372 of 2022

¶6

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., VCTC Main Road, Sathy Road, Erode 638 003. ... Appellant/ 2nd Respondent Vs

¶7

Sulochana ... 1st Respondent/ 1st Petitioner. 2. Minor Naveenkumar ... 2^nd Respondent/ 2nd Petitioner. 3. Minor Rosika ... 3^rd Respondent/ 3rd Petitioner.

¶8

(2^nd and 3^rd Respondents Being Minors are Represented by their Mother/next friend Mrs.Sulochana, the 1st respondent herein)

¶9

Sowndram ... 4th Respondent/ 4th Petitioner. 5. S.Nallasamy ... 5th Respondent/ 1st Respondent. 6. G.Ramesh ... 6th Respondent/ 3rd Respondent.

¶10

PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, to set aside the order dated 9th day of August 2021 made in MCOP.No.581 of 2018 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special District Court) Salem.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Dhakshnamoorthy For Respondents : No appearance R1, 4 to 6 – Seved No appearance R2 & R3 (Minor) rep by R1

¶12

JUDGEMENT

¶13

The 2^nd respondent/Insurance Company has challenged the award passed by the Motor accident Claims Tribunal Special District Judge, Salem in M.C.O.P.No.581 of 2018. The challenge is on the ground of negligence.

¶14

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

¶15

It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/ insurance company that the accident had occurred only on account of the negligence of the driver of the car in which the deceased Devaraj @ Thiyagarajan, the husband of the 1^st petitioner and father of the petitioners 2 and 3 and the son of the 4^th respondent was travelling. He would submit that the charge sheet which is marked as Ex.C.1, clearly sets out that the driver of the car was rash and negligent in his driving and it was this rash and negligent driving that had caused the accident. He would submit that this factor has not been taken note of by the Tribunal below and this has resulted in the Insurance Company being mulcted with the entire liability.

¶16

The respondents though served have not entered appearance. Therefore, this Court has proceeded to hear the learned counsel for the appellant/ Insurance Company and pass orders.

¶17

It is no doubt true that Ex.C.1, charge sheet would state that the driver of the Car in which the deceased was travelling was driven in rash and negligent manner by its driver. However, C.W.1, the police official who was examined and through whom Ex.C1 had been marked in his cross examination has clearly deposed that the charge sheet does not contain the statement of the witnesses. That apart, the FIR had been registered against the driver of the tanker lorry. In these circumstances the fixing of liability on the driver of the car in the charge sheet appears to be suspicious.

¶18

The Tribunal has considered the above aspect and rejected the contention and has held that the accident was only on account of the rash and negligent driving of the tanker lorry. Therefore, the argument in this regard has to necessarily be rejected. Since the appeal has been preferred only on the ground of negligence and as this Court finds that the Tribunal below has rightly held the Driver of the Tanker lorry to be negligent, nothing further survives for consideration in the above appeal and consequently, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶19

Sd/-

¶20

Assistant Registrar(CS-IX)

¶21

//True Copy//

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

shr

¶24

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

¶25

¶26

1.Motor Accident Claims Tribunal

¶27

(Special District Court) Salem.

¶28

2.The Section Office, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.

¶29

+1cc to Mr.S.Dhakshnamoorthy, Advocate SR.No.18226

¶30

C.M.A. No.55 of 2022 and C.M.P.No.372 of 2022

¶31

SR II(CO) GN(05/05/2022)

¶32

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

Shriram General Insurance Co.Ltd v. Sulochana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shriram General Insurance Co.Ltd v. Sulochana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Madheshwari

K. Yuvapriya Vs K. Kalidasan

K. Yuvapriya Vs K. Kalidasan

M/s.Sharma Centre for Heritage Education Vs The Director

Ravikumar Vs the Managing Director

N.Panneerselvam Vs R.Vinoth Kumar