This judgment dismisses an insurance company's appeal against a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award. The court upheld the Tribunal's finding of comparative negligence and the compensation quantum, characterizing the award as just and reasonable.
The appeal was dismissed and the impugned award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal was confirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.M.A.No.4155 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.11.2023
C O R A M
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
C.M.A.No.4155 of 2019 and C.M.P.No.23481 of 2019
The Manager, M/s.Bharti AXA General Insurance Co.Ltd., Pride Quadra, No.30, 3rd Floor, Nellary Road, Hebbal, Bangalore-24 ... Appellant/2nd Respondent
Vs
1.K.Mahendiran ... 1st Respondent/Petitioner 2.Francis Benny ... 2nd Respondent/1st Respondent
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as against the Judgement and decree dated 14.03.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.94 of 2019 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri.
For Appellant ... M/s.S.Arun Kumar For Respondents ... Notice not ready [R1] ... No Appearance [R2]
Page No.1 of 8
C.M.A.No.4155 of 2019
JUDGMENT
Chellenging the impugned award dated 14.03.2019 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri in M.C.O.P.No.94 of 2019, the Appellant-Insurance Company has filed the present appeal.
Page No.2 of 8
C.M.A.No.4155 of 2019
by the claimant.
Page No.3 of 8
C.M.A.No.4155 of 2019
is evident that it is only the claimant who had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. Further, the same has also been reflected in the FIR and therefore fastening of liability and negligence on the driver of the car is wholly erroneous and hence the order of the Tribunal requires interference. It is the further submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that when the doctor had assessed 45% of functional disability, the adoption of multiplier method while granting compensation under the head disability is wholly erroneous. Accordingly, the impugned award of the Tribunal requires interference.
Page No.4 of 8
C.M.A.No.4155 of 2019
this Court is not entering into the said aspect. It is case of the claimant that when he tried to overtake the vehicle on the left side, the vehicle suddenly turned on the left side due to which the claimant was thrown out of the vehicle and he sustained injuries. According to the Motor Vehicle Rules and the traffic that has to be followed, overtaking on the left hand side is prohibited, however, mere prohibition does not absolve the driver of the car from not giving signal before turning. In the case on hand, there is no material either in the FIR or through any independent evidence that the driver of the car had given proper signal before turning left though the claimant had tried to overtake on the left which is not proper. Equally the act of the driver of the vehicle in not signaling his left hand turn is not proper however, by properly appreciating the above, the Tribunal has rightly fixed 75% of the negligence on the part of the driver of the 2 nd respondent's vehicle and 25% on the claimant. Therefore, the said
finding does not require any interference as it is just and reasonable.
Page No.5 of 8
C.M.A.No.4155 of 2019
8. Insofar as the fixation of disability is concerned, the Tribunal based
on the Ex.P-2, the disability certificate and also based on the Ex.C1, has fixed the disability at 40%. However, the appellant has not placed any material contra to the above to prove that the claimant has not suffered particular percentage of disability, the procedure adopted by the Tribunal for fixing the disability based on the said fixation cannot be said to erroneous. The Tribunal has awarded compensation under the head disability by adopting multiplier method in view of the fact that disability had been assessed at 40% which is a permanent disability and hence the adoption of multiplier method is proper. Therefore, the compensation awarded under the head disability does not require any interference. Insofar as the compensation awarded under other heads, this Court finds it to be just and reasonable as the same has been fixed based on the oral and documentary evidence. Such being the case, the compensation being just and reasonable does not require any interference.
Page No.6 of 8
C.M.A.No.4155 of 2019
M.C.O.P.No.94 of 2019 stands confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs
in the present appeal. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition stands closed.
22.11.2023
Index : Yes / No Speaking Order / Non-speaking order Neutral Citation Case : Yes / No
NHS
To
Page No.7 of 8
C.M.A.No.4155 of 2019
M.DHANDAPANI, J
NHS
C.M.A.No.4155 of 2019
22.11.2023
Page No.8 of 8
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal erred in fixing 75% negligence on the car driver versus 25% on the claimant.
Whether the Tribunal erred in adopting the multiplier method for calculating compensation based on a 40% disability assessment.
Whether the compensation award was just and reasonable and required interference on appeal.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s. Bharti AXA General Insurance Co. Ltd.
M/s. Bharti AXA General Insurance Co. Ltd.
K.Mahendiran
Francis Benny
M.DHANDAPANI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
