Partly allowed

Kottursamy v. Ganesan

Madras HC9 Mar 2023CMA(MD)/641/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal challenging a compensation award. It held that liability was erroneously fixed on the vehicle owner and driver instead of including the insurer, who was insured under a formal package policy, despite no plea regarding unauthorized travel during the accident. The quantum was not disturbed.

What did the court decide?

The Tribunal's award is set aside partially; respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation.

Kottursamy Vs Ganesan — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

C.M.A.(MD).No.641 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 09.03.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶6

C.M.A(MD)No.641 of 2019

¶7

Kottursamy

¶8

..... Appellant /Claimant

¶9

-vs-

¶10

Ganesan

¶11

Madathi

¶12

The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Door No.37/2, Mattappa Street, 2^nd Floor, Neel Complex, Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District. .... Respondents/ Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to enhance the compensation award passed on 09.04.2019, made in M.C.O.P.No.153 of 2014, on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal/ Sub-Court, Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District.

¶14

For Appellant : Mr.A.Sankararamasubramanian

¶15

For Respondents : No appearance

¶16

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

¶17

1/5

¶18

C.M.A.(MD).No.641 of 2019

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation and also for shifting the liability on the Insurance Company.

¶21

2. According to the claimant, the driver of the Tractor had driven the Tractor in the reverse direction and hit against the stone and got capsized. The Tractor had capsized and fell upon the claimant. The claimant was injured in the said accident. The second respondent in the claim petition is the owner of the vehicle and the third respondent in the claim petition is the Insurance Company of the Tractor.

¶22

3. A perusal of the counter indicates that nowhere the Insurance Company has taken a defence that the claimant was travelling as an unauthorized passenger in the mud-guard of the Tractor. However, the Tribunal has proceeded to accept the arguments on the side of the Insurance Company and proceeded to hold that the claimant was travelling as an

¶23

2/5

¶24

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

¶25

C.M.A.(MD).No.641 of 2019

¶26

unauthorized passenger in the mudguard of the Tractor and thereafter imposed the liability upon the owner and driver of the Tractor for payment of compensation. This Award is under challenge in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

¶27

4. A perusal of the claim petition and the counter will clearly indicate that nowhere it has been stated by the claimant or by the Insurance Company that the claimant was travelling in the mudguard of the Tractor. Therefore, the Tribunal was not right in accepting the arguments of the Insurance Company that the claimant was travelling in the mud-guard without any pleading whatsoever. The Tribunal has proceeded to hold that the claimant was an unauthorised passenger and passed an award against the owner and driver of the Tractor. It is an admitted fact that the Tractor is insured with the third respondent/ Insurance Company, under a formal package policy.

¶28

5. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the quantum of award, considering the fact that the injuries sustained by the claimant were not serious in nature. However, the Tribunal has erroneously fixed the liability on the owner and the driver of the vehicle.

¶29

3/5

¶30

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

¶31

C.M.A.(MD).No.641 of 2019

¶32

6. The award of the Tribunal is set aside partially to the effect, that the respondents 1 to 3 in the M.C.O.P.No.153 of 2014 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation to the extent as stated above. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands allowed-in-part. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶33

09.03.2023

¶34

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No ebsi

¶35

¶36

The Motor Accident Claim's Tribunal/ The Principal Sub Court, Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District.

¶37

2. The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Door No.37/2, Mattappa Street, 2^nd Floor, Neel Complex, Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District.

¶38

3. The Section Officer, Vernacular Records, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶39

4/5

¶40

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

¶41

C.M.A.(MD).No.641 of 2019

¶42

R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.

¶43

ebsi

¶44

C.M.A.(MD)No.641 of 2019

¶45

09.03.2023

¶46

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

¶47

5/5

Kottursamy v. Ganesan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kottursamy v. Ganesan

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

Veeraiah Vs Mani

S. Mohammed Mirza Ismail, Vs Delhi Hall, a Partnership Firm

A.Poongodi, Vs S.Louis Loganathan

N.Ilavarasan Vs Indira

Aided Higher Secondary School, Vs Dr. Pugazhenthi

Nakoda Homes Pvt.Ltd Vs Arumuga Nainar Trust