The High Court dismissed an appeal by Bajaj Allianz against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award fixing 50% liability of the insurer. The Court upheld the Tribunal's finding of shared negligence and confirmed the compensation quantum.
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal dismissed; Tribunal award confirmed; Appellant directed to deposit 50% of compensation.
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.3426 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on: Pronounced on:
26.02.2024
07.06.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
C.M.A.No.3426 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Arts College Road, Coimbatore.
.. Appellants
Vs.
7.R.K.Electronics,
129-Priya Complex, Bilamedu, Coimbatore.
8.Rathinam
1/10
C.M.A.No.3426 of 2013
9.Uthamaraj
.. Respondents
Prayer : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the award made under the common judgment and decree dated 20.09.2012 made in M.C.O.P.No.32 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Udumalpet and dismiss the case entirely as against the appellant.
For Appellant : Mr.J.Michael Visuvasam For RR 1 to 3 : Mr.N.Umapathi For R6 : Mr.S.Arunkumar For RR 4, 5 & 7 to 9 : No appearance
J U D G M E N T
This appeal has been filed by the appellant – Insurance Company against the judgment and decree dated 20.09.2012 made in M.C.O.P.No.32 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Udumalpet.
2/10
C.M.A.No.3426 of 2013
Facts of the case :
Maruti car from Pudukottai to Coimbatore on 12.09.2010 around 02.45 PM
near the Bhavendar Bharathidasan Engineering College Pirivu road, the accident had taken place. The said Gunasekaran was driving the Maruti car after attending the Sathabiseka function at S.V.S.Thirumana Mahal. The said Gunasekaran and other relatives were returning from Pudukottai to Coimbatore. They travelled in the Maruti car bearing Registration No.TN 47
L 4646 in Trichy to Pudukottai National Highways No.210. At about 02.45 PM, when the car reached near Bhavendar Bharathidasan Engineering College Pirivu road, the lorry bearing Registration No.TCL 1179 coming from opposite direction driven by the driver Ponnaiah in a rash and negligent manner without adhering to traffic rules and regulations and he dashed against the car driven by the said Gunasekaran on the extreme left side of the road and due to which, the said Gunasekaran died on the spot as the car was dashed by the lorry and the car was completely damaged.
2(a).The driver of the lorry is Ponnaiah and the owner of the lorry is
3/10
C.M.A.No.3426 of 2013
Shanmugam. The lorry is insured with Oriental Insurance Company Limited.
2(b).The owner of the car is R.K.Electronics, Coimbatore and the car is insured with Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited. Hence, the claim petition has been filed by the claimants claiming a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one Ramasamy.
3.In the said accident, 6 persons are reported dead and 9 persons are reported injured resulted in filing of 7 MCOPs. On the above 7 MCOPs, M.C.O.P.Nos.32 of 2011 & 33 of 2011 was disposed of by the learned Subordinate Judge, Udumalpet, on 20.09.2012 by common judgment, whereby the negligence is fixed on the part of both the driver of the car and driver of the lorry and accordingly liability of the Insurance Company of the car viz., Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company of the lorry viz., Oriental Insurance Company Limited was fixed at 50% : 50%.
4.The record reveals that as against the judgment passed in
4/10
C.M.A.No.3426 of 2013
M.C.O.P.Nos.32 of 2011 & 33 of 2011 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Udumalpet, arising out of the very same accident, which was mentioned supra , wherein the Tribunal has held that the driver of both the lorry as well as the driver of the car are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation and accordingly fixed 50% liability each and consequently, both the Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation 50% each. As against this judgment, it appears that Oriental Insurance Company (Insurance Company of the lorry) has filed appeal in C.M.A.Nos.531 of 2019 & 540 of 2019.
5.This Court by common judgment dated 25.01.2019, dismissed C.M.A.Nos.531 of 2019 & 540 of 2019 filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited observing that the claimant/claimants filed the said claim petitions claiming a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- and Rs.30,00,000/- respectively as compensation for the death of one Rajamani and G.Ramasamy who died in the accident that took place on 12.09.2010. The Tribunal, considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due
5/10
C.M.A.No.3426 of 2013
to rash and negligent driving by the 1 st respondent, driver of the lorry belonging to the 2 nd respondent and directed the respondents 3 and 5 each to pay 50% of the sum of Rs.10,70,000/- and Rs.22,35,000/- as compensation to the claimant/claimants respectively. The Tribunal considering the evidence of P.W.2, who had deposed that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the 1 st respondent, driver of the lorry and Ex.P1-FIR filed against the 1 st respondent and in the absence of any evidence to disprove the contention of the claimant/claimants, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the 1 st respondent and confirmed the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udumalpet, that the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of both the vehicles viz., car and lorry and also held that both the Insurance Company are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation at the rate of 50% each and the finding that Insurance Company of the lorry viz., Oriental Insurance Company Limited is directed to pay the compensation to the claimants at the first instance and recover the same from the owner of the lorry, which was granted has been confirmed.
6/10
C.M.A.No.3426 of 2013
6.
C.M.A.Nos.531 & 540 of 2019, which were filed at the instance of one of the Insurance Company of the two of the vehicles involved in the accident, namely the Oriental Insurance Company for the lorry and Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited for the car, wherein 50% contributory negligence has been fixed as against driver of each of the vehicle and after perusing the common judgment dated 25.01.2019, I do not find any valid reason to take a different view on the matter.
6(a).Hence, I find that the order passed by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.Nos.32 of 2011 & 33 of 2011 which was confirmed by the common judgment of this Court in C.M.A.Nos.531 of 2019 & 540 of 2019, is squarely applicable to C.M.A.No.3426 of 2013 for the Insurance Company of the car and lorry and hence, I find no merits in the said appeal filed by the Insurance Company of the car viz., Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited on the pointum of negligence and liability thereof and after perusing the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, I find that the Tribunal has rightly arrived on the multiplier and also deducted 1/3 rd deduction towards
7/10
C.M.A.No.3426 of 2013
reported in
personal expenses and followed the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court
reported in 2009 (2) TNMAC 1 SC Supreme Court, [Sarla Verma & others
Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another] and also granted loss of love and affection and hence, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in this appeal is just and fair and does not warrant any interference at the appellate stage. Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed.
7.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and a sum of Rs.22,35,000/- awarded by the Tribunal as compensation to the respondents 1 to 3 / claimants, along with interest and costs is confirmed. The appellant (Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited) is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.11,17,500/- (being 50% of the award amount) along with interest and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.32 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Udumalpet. The 6 th respondent (Oriental Insurance Company Limited) is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.11,17,500/- (being 50% of the award amount), along with interest and costs, less the amount already
8/10
C.M.A.No.3426 of 2013
deposited, if any, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.32 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Udumalpet, at the first instance and recover the same from the 5 th respondent – owner of the lorry. On such deposit, the respondents 1 to 3 / claimants are permitted to withdraw their respective share of the award amount as per the ratio of apportionment made by the Tribunal, along with proportionate interest and costs, after adjusting the amount, if any already withdrawn, by filing necessary applications before the Tribunal. Pending appeal, 2 nd respondent died and the legal heirs of the 2 nd respondent are brought on record as respondents 8 & 9 in this appeal. The respondents 8 & 9 are permitted to withdraw the respective share of the decesed 2 nd respondent by filing necessary applications before the Tribunal. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
07.06.2024
krk Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No
9/10
C.M.A.No.3426 of 2013
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.
krk
To
C.M.A.No.3426 of 2013
07.06.2024
10/10
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the quantification of 50% contributory negligence to be borne by each of the two insurance companies was perverse and required interference.
Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal warranted interference at the appellate stage.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sarla Verma & others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & anotherReferred¶67
2009 (2) TNMAC 1 SC Supreme Court, [Sarla Verma & others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another]
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited
Niveditha
Gurusamy
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
R.K.Electronics
Rathinam
RMT.Teekaa Raman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
