Insurance company appealed against Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. Court held permission was fixed in previous related appeal and quantum was reasonable. Appeal dismissed.
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed without costs.
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(MD)No.1410 of 2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 13.03.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
C.M.A(MD)No.1410 of 2013
New India Assurance Company Ltd., Attringal, Represented by its Branch Manager, Nagercoil, Balamore Road, Nagercoil Village, Agastheeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District.
... Appellant/3rd Respondent
Vs.
1.Celestin ... Respondent/Petitioner
1/8
C.M.A(MD)No.1410 of 2013
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the I Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, I Additional Sub Court, Nagercoil in M.C.O.P.No.51 of 2005 dated 26.09.2012.
For Appellant : Mr.D.Sivaraman For R1 : Mr.S.Vashikali for Mr.R.Murugan For R2-R4 : No Appearance
JUDGEMENT
The present appeal has been filed by the insurance company challenging an award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.51 of 2005 on the file of the I Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagercoil.
he was driving a jeep from Marthandam to Sengottai in Tirunelveli District. At about 10 a.m., when they were travelling towards Nagercoil, a lorry which was coming behind the jeep came and hit against the rear side of the jeep in a rash and negligent manner. Therefore, the driver of the jeep lost his control and hit against a bus belonging to the transport
C.M.A(MD)No.1410 of 2013
corporation and it was pulled to the left side of the road. At that point of time, the lorry belonging to the 1st respondent driven by the 2nd respondent in the claim petition attempted to overtake the bus and hit against the jeep, in which the claimant got injured. The claim petition was filed seeking a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakh only) towards compensation.
3/8
C.M.A(MD)No.1410 of 2013
only due to rash and negligence driving of the lorry, which was attempting to overtake the bus from the opposite direction, this accident has happened.
C.M.A(MD)No.1410 of 2013
known, the claimants have not impleaded the said lorry owner or identified the said lorry.
5/8
C.M.A(MD)No.1410 of 2013
driving of the lorry driver, this accident has happened. The insurance company also was not exonerated and the liability was confirmed by this Court. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the respondent/claimant, one C.M.A arising out of the same accident has already been dismissed and this Court may not take a different view in the present appeal.
C.M.A(MD)No.1410 of 2013
unreasonable or exorbitant.
13.03.2023 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No
gbg
To
2.The Section Officer, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
7/8
C.M.A(MD)No.1410 of 2013
R.VIJAYAKUMAR ,J. gbg
Order made in C.M.A(MD)No.1410 of 2013
13.03.2023
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Tribunal's finding of negligence and quantum of compensation in a motor accident claim.
Whether a prior dismissal of an appeal arising from the same accident precludes a different view in the present appeal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
C.M.A(MD)No.1147 of 2011Referred¶8
2 provisions across 1 enactments
New India Assurance Company Ltd.
Celestin
Sudhamani
P.Prasath
United India Insurance Co., Ltd.
Prosecutor, Diocese of Marthandam
R.VIJAYAKUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
