Dismissed

The Branch Manager v. Chinnakannu

Madras HC8 Apr 2024CMA/3355/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal by United India Insurance Company challenging the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's finding of 25% contributory negligence on its insured rider. Upholding the Tribunal's assessment of all parties' responsibility, the Court directed the deposit of the award share within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Appellant directed to deposit share of award amount with interest within four weeks; Tribunal to transfer amounts to claimants thereafter.

The Branch Manager Vs Chinnakannu — Insurance | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.M.A.No.3355 of 2021

¶2

and C.M.P.No.19202 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED: 08.04.2024

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶7

C.M.A.No.3355 of 2021 and

¶8

C.M.P.No.19202 of 2021

¶9

The Branch Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office, Opp. To Vasan Eye Hospital Dharmapuri City, Dharmapuri District ... Appellant

¶10

..Vs..

¶11

1.Chinnakannu

¶12

2.Kalaiselvi

¶13

3.Muthulakshmi

¶14

4.Mohan

¶15

5.Perumal

¶16

6.The Branch Manager The New India Assurance Company Limited Branch Office No.39-C, Bye Pass Road Dharmapuri-701.

¶17

7.Anbarasan

¶18

...Respondents

¶19

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award and decree dated 06.04.2018 made in MCOP No.1921 of 2014, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal

¶20

¶21

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

¶22

C.M.A.No.3355 of 2021

¶23

and C.M.P.No.19202 of 2021

¶24

(Special District Judge) at Dharmapuri.

¶25

For Appellant : Ms.J.V.Sandhiya Priyadharshini For M/s.C.Paranthaman For Respondents : Mr.J.Chandran for R6

¶26

J U D G M E N T

¶27

This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company questioning the

¶28

contributory negligence fixed on the driver of a vehicle insured with the appellant. The Tribunal has fixed the contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle insured with the appellant at 25%.

¶29

The respondents 1 to 5 and 7 have been duly served with the notice

¶30

in the appeal and their names have also been printed in the cause list today.

¶31

The respondents no.1 to 4 are the claimants. The deceased

¶32

Munusamy died as a result of an accident that happened on 25.08.2013 involving a vehicle insured with the appellant and another vehicle insured 2/6

¶33

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

¶34

C.M.A.No.3355 of 2021 and C.M.P.No.19202 of 2021

¶35

with the sixth respondent. The vehicle insured with the appellant is a two wheeler, whereas the vehicle insured with the sixth respondent is a lorry. The FIR was registered against the lorry insured with the second respondent as seen from the FIR. Munusamy is a rider of a two wheeler which had over taken the lorry insured with the sixth respondent and had colluded with a two wheeler insured with the appellant which was coming from the opposite direction. As a result of the said accident, he died on the spot. The respondents no.1 to 4 are the legal representatives of the deceased Munusamy and they are the claimants.

¶36

Based on the evidence available on record, the Tribunal has fixed contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry insured with the sixth respondent at 50% and fixed contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the vehicle insured with the appellant at 25%. The Tribunal has also fixed contributory negligence on the part of the deceased who was a rider of the two wheeler at 25%. As seen from the evidence available on record, the appellant/Insurance Company has not produced any contra

¶37

3/6

¶38

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

¶39

C.M.A.No.3355 of 2021 and C.M.P.No.19202 of 2021

¶40

evidence to prove that the rider of the two wheeler insured with them did not ride the two wheeler in a rash and negligent manner. Based on preponderance of probability, after giving due consideration to the cause of the accident, the Tribunal has come to the right conclusion that all three of them namely, the rider of the two wheeler insured with the appellant, the driver of the lorry insured with the sixth respondent and the deceased were responsible for the cause of the accident and fixed their contributory negligence at 25%, 50% and 25% respectively. This Court does not find any infirmity to the findings of the Tribunal. The appellant/Insurance Company has also not questioned the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, but has only questioned the ratio of contributory negligence fixed by the Tribunal.

¶41

For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. Both the Appellant Insurance Company and the 6th Respondent Insurance Company are directed to deposit their respective share of award amount together with interest from

¶42

4/6

¶43

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

¶44

C.M.A.No.3355 of 2021 and C.M.P.No.19202 of 2021

¶45

the date of claim till the date of deposit and costs as assessed by the Tribunal after deducting the amount already deposited, if any to the credit of MCOP.No.1921 of 2014 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such deposit being made, the Tribunal is directed to transfer the respective shares of award amount along with accrued interest to the bank accounts of the respondents 1 to 4 /claimants through RTGS within a period of two weeks thereafter. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

¶46

08.04.2024

¶47

Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order

¶48

uma

¶49

¶50

1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Special District Judge, Dharmapuri.

¶51

1.The Section Officer V.R.Section, High Court of Madras.

¶52

5/6

¶53

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

¶54

C.M.A.No.3355 of 2021

¶55

and C.M.P.No.19202 of 2021

¶56

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

¶57

uma

¶58

C.M.A.No.3355 of 2021 and C.M.P No.19202 of 2021

¶59

08.04.2024

¶60

6/6

¶61

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

The Branch Manager v. Chinnakannu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Branch Manager v. Chinnakannu

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

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Chinnaponnu

Senthil Vs Venugopal

K.Panneerselvam Vs Abbu Thahir

Branch Manager Vs Latha

N.Murugan Vs M/S Sri Vishweswara Transport Co-Op Society Ltd.

M/S. National Insurance Co. Vs M Mummoorthy(Deceased)