Dismissed

United India Ins Co. Ltd. v. M.Dhanalakshmi

Madras HC2 Mar 2023CMA/157/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed civil miscellaneous appeals filed by an insurance company against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal order awarding compensation for the death of two pillion riders. The court found no evidence supporting the claim of rider intoxication or license violation and upheld the Tribunal's finding of negligence and compensation quantum. Connected civil miscellaneous petitions were

What did the court decide?

Both civil miscellaneous appeals were dismissed; no costs awarded; connected civil miscellaneous petitions closed.

United India Ins Co. Ltd. Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

CMA Nos.157 and 144 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

RESERVED ON : 31.01.2023

¶4

PRONOUNCED ON : 02.03.2023

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN

¶7

CMA Nos.157 and 144 of 2023 and CMP Nos.1278 & 1348 of 2023

¶8

CMA No.157 of 2023

¶9

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, 139, Kumaran Road, Tiruppur – 641 018 … Appellant

¶10

Vs.

¶11

M.Dhanalakshmi 2. P.Muthu 3. G.Perumal. … Respondents

¶12

CMA No.144 of 2023

¶13

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, 139, Kumaran Road, Tiruppur – 641 018 … Appellant

¶14

Vs.

¶15

V.Poongodi 2. O.Vanangamudi 3. G.Perumal. … Respondents

¶16

____________ Page No.1/7_

¶17

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

¶18

CMA Nos.157 and 144 of 2023

¶19

COMMON PRAYER: These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the common decree and judgment dated 28.03.2019 made in MCOP No.312 & 311 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Sathyamangalam.

¶20

For Appellant : Mr.S.Arunkumar in both cases For Respondents : Mr.R.Nalliyappan (for R1 & R2) in both cases

¶21

C O M M O N J U D G M E N T

¶22

Both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are by consent taken up together, for final disposal.

¶23

The respective 1^st and 2^nd respondents are the claim petitioners,

¶24

who have filed separate claim petitions, seeking compensation for the death of their sons, who were aged 21 years, at the time of the accident.

¶25

Both the MCOPs were tried together and during the trial, on the

¶26

side of the the claim petitioners, PW1 to PW4 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P23 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral or documentary evidence has been let in.

¶27

Page No.2/7

¶28

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

¶29

CMA Nos.157 and 144 of 2023

¶30

On consideration of both oral and documentary evidence, the tribunal has come to the conclusion that while both the deceased persons were travelling in a two wheeler on the left hand side of the road moving West to East, at Periyakulam to Batlagundu road, a TATA Sumo vehicle insured with the appellant-Insurance company, which came from behind hit against the persons, who were travelling in the two-wheeler and thereby, both of them were thrown out of the road and subsequently, died due to the injuries. Accordingly, the tribunal has held that the accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle insured with the appellant-insurance company. Further, the claims tribunal has awarded Rs.18,84,400/- to the claim petitioners, in each of the claim petitions.

¶31

Challenging the said finding fixing negligence and also the quantum of compensation, the Insurance company has preferred the appeals in both the cases.

¶32

Factum of the accident, manner of the accident, are not disputed

¶33

____________ Page No.3/7_

¶34

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

¶35

CMA Nos.157 and 144 of 2023

¶36

and hence, the findings of the tribunal are confirmed.

¶37

According to Mr.Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the appellantInsurance company, at the time of the accident, the rider of the two wheeler was under the influence of alcohol. He could not control the vehicle and resulted in the death, much less he could further contend that the rider of the two wheeler also died in the accident.

¶38

On perusal of Ex.P1-FIR and Ex.P2-Charge sheet, there is no indication that he was driving the vehicle under the influence of the alcohol. Perusal of Ex.P14, proves that there is no indication in the Postmortem report as to the consumption of alcohol as stated by the insurance company. Further, as per Ex.P17, he possessed valid driving license and hence, there is no violation of policy condition. Therefore, the appellant-insurance company being the insurer of the offending vehicle is liable to pay compensation to the claimants in both the claim petition and both the points raised by the appellant counsel is negatived.

¶39

____________ Page No.4/7_

¶40

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

¶41

CMA Nos.157 and 144 of 2023

¶42

On the point of quantum of compensation, after going through the award, I am of the view that the same is in consonance with the decisions of our Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation , reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 SarlaVarma and National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680 .

¶43

In the absence of any positive evidence to substantiate the plea that, at the time of the accident, the rider of the two wheeler is under the influence of alcohol, the claims tribunal has rightly rejected the said plea. Secondly, as per Ex.P17, the rider of the two wheeler had valid driving license on the date of the accident and therefore, as stated supra, both the points are negatived and hence, the finding of the Claims Tribunal fixing negligence is confirmed. So also, on the point of quantum of compensation, after perusing the compensation awarded, I am of the view that it is fair and reasonable.

¶44

____________ Page No.5/7_

¶45

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

¶46

CMA Nos.157 and 144 of 2023

¶47

In view of the above discussion, both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are devoid of merits and hence dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶48

02.03.2023

¶49

Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No. ars

¶50

¶51

The Sub Court, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sathyamangalam.

¶52

____________ Page No.6/7_

¶53

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

¶54

CMA Nos.157 and 144 of 2023

¶55

RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN,J.,

¶56

ars

¶57

Pre-delivery common judgment in CMA Nos.157 and 144 of 2023

¶58

02.03.2023

¶59

____________ Page No.7/7_

¶60

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

United India Ins Co. Ltd. v. M.Dhanalakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United India Ins Co. Ltd. v. M.Dhanalakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K Manivannan Vs Ravichandran

K.Manikandan Vs R.Thirunavukkarasu

S.D.Mukesh Kanna Vs E.Mohan

A.Rajamanickam Vs Palanisamay

S.Balasubramaniyan Vs Palanisamay

Rani Vs P.Mahalakshmi