Allowed

Tata Aig General Insurance Company Limited v. Sudha

Madras HC9 Aug 2024CMA/1854/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Insurance appeal against Motor Accident Claims Tribunal order directing insurer to pay 10% compensation share for contributory negligence. Appellants argued this portion was erroneous. Court set aside the direction directing appellant to pay Rs.1,56,620/- and allowed appeal.

What did the court decide?

Direction directing appellant to pay compensation of Rs.1,56,620/- set aside; excess deposit of Rs.2,49,763/- ordered to be refunded.

Tata Aig General Insurance Company Limited Vs Sudha — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

CMA.No.1854 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 09.08.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA

¶6

C.M.A.No.1854 of 2023 and C.M.P.No.17944 of 2023

¶7

M/s.TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited, Coimbatore.

¶8

... Appellants

¶9

vs.

¶10

Sudha

¶11

Santhamma

¶12

Minor.Sathvika Daughter of Late. Suresh, Rep. by her next friend and Guardian Mother Sudha.

¶13

M/s.Samy Feeds Private Limited, No.324/2, Nathampalayam, Mulanoor, Dharapuram Taluk, Erode District - 638 656.

¶14

The Branch Manager, M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited, No.5, Big Bazaar Street, Dharapuram. ... Respondents

¶15

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

1/7

CMA.No.1854 of 2023

PRAYER:

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the decree and judgment dated 23.01.2023 in M.C.O.P.No.123 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Hosur.

¶20

For Appellants : Mr.J.Michael Visuvasam For R3 : Mr.I.Malar

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

Challenging the order of the Tribunal directing the appellant to

¶23

pay compensation of Rs.1,56,620/- to the claimants / respondents 1 to 3, the present appeal is filed by the appellant Insurance Company.

¶24

2. The respondents 1 to 3 / claimants filed the claim petition for

¶25

the death of one R.Suresh (the husband of the first claimant, the son of the 2nd claimant and father of the 3rd claimant) in a road accident which happened on 12.05.2012. According to the claimants, the deceased R.Suresh was riding his motorcycle bearing Registration number TN 70 D 8826 insured with the appellant / Insurance Company. When he was

¶26

2/7

¶27

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

¶28

CMA.No.1854 of 2023

¶29

nearing Kudisathanapali, Hosur, another motorcycle bearing Registration number TN 56 Z 2940, hit the motorcycle driven by the deceased Suresh, as a result of which, he sustained injuries and died on spot.

¶30

3. According to the claimants, the rash and negligent driving of

¶31

the driver of the Two Wheeler bearing Registration number TN 56 Z 2940 was the cause of the accident and that since the said vehicle was insured with the 5th Respondent / United India Insurance Company Limited, Dharapuram, the owner viz., M/s.Samy Feeds Private Limited and the insurance company are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

¶32

4. The Tribunal while fixing negligence on the part of the driver of the motor cycle bearing Registration number TN 56 Z 2940 also held

¶33

that the deceased Suresh contributed to the accident. Therefore, the Tribunal fixed 10% towards contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The total compensation awarded was Rs.14,09,580/- after deducted a sum of Rs.1,56,620/- (10% contributory negligence). The Tribunal while directing the fifth respondent to pay a sum of Rs.14,09,580/-, unfortunately, also directed the present appellant to pay

¶34

3/7

¶35

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

¶36

CMA.No.1854 of 2023

¶37

the award amount of Rs.1,56,620/- (10% contributory negligence) together with interest 7.5% per annum. According to the appellant, this

¶38

portion of the order passed by the Tribunal, is erroneous and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.

¶39

5. The claimants though were served with notice and their

¶40

names were also printed in the cause list, they did not appear before this Court.

¶41

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the portion of the order dated 23.01.2023 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Hosur in M.C.O.P.No.123 of 2014, directing the present appellant to pay compensation of Rs.1,56,620/- to the claimants is set aside.

¶42

7. It is represented by the counsel for the appellant that a sum of

¶43

Rs,2,49,763/-was deposited to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.123/2014 by the appellant Insurance Company. Therefore, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Hosur shall refund the said amount to

¶44

4/7

¶45

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

¶46

CMA.No.1854 of 2023

¶47

the appellant / Insurance Company, by following due process of law.

¶48

8. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No

¶49

costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶50

09.08.2024

¶51

Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes / No vum

¶52

¶53

1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Hosur

¶54

2.M/s.TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited, Coimbatore.

¶55

3.The Section Officer, VR Section, Madras High Court, Chennai.

¶56

5/7

¶57

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

CMA.No.1854 of 2023

R.HEMALATHA, J.

vum

C.M.A.No.1854 of 2023 and C.M.P.No.17944 of 2023

¶62

6/7

¶63

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

CMA.No.1854 of 2023

09.08.2024

7/7

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

Tata Aig General Insurance Company Limited v. Sudha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tata Aig General Insurance Company Limited v. Sudha

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

N. Suresh (died) 1. Chitra Vs S.Senthilkumar

The Divisional Manager Vs Geetha

The Branch Manager Vs R.Sekhar

Kamatchi Vs The Managing Director

Dhanalatchumi Vs G.Thirumal

The Branch Manager Vs Sambath