Partly allowed

The Branch Manager v. Indhirani

Madras HC30 Oct 2024CMA(MD)/1015/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an insurance appeal challenging the Tribunal's finding on negligence. The Court confirmed the rider's fault but fixed 15% contributory negligence on the deceased. The total compensation was adjusted to Rs.17,77,520 plus transport costs.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was partly allowed. The Tribunal's award was modified by fixing 15% contributory negligence on the deceased and adding Rs.15,000 for transport expenses, resulting in a net payment of Rs.17,

The Branch Manager Vs Indhirani — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.M.A.(MD) No.1015 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 30.10.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶6

C.M.A.(MD)No.1015 of 2024

¶7

and

¶8

C.M.P.(MD)No.10501 of 2024

¶9

The Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, No.127/8, Madurai Road, First Floor, Bhuvaneswari Complex, Virudhunagar.

¶10

... Appellant

¶11

vs.

¶12

1.Indhirani, 2.C.Venkateswaran.

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the order dated 20.02.2024 in M.C.O.P.No.86 of 2020 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Court, Virudhungar.

¶15

For appellant : Mr.C.Jawahar Ravindran

¶16

For Respondents for R1 : Mr. A.Sivaji for R2 : Given up

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 1 of 8_

¶18

C.M.A.(MD) No.1015 of 2024

¶19

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

The instant appeal has been filed by the insurance company challenging the finding on negligence.

¶22

The first respondent filed a claim petition stating that while the deceased was travelling from north to south, the offending vehicle insured with the appellant came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and caused an accident, as a result of which the deceased sustained fatal injuries.

¶23

The appellant filed a counter stating that the accident took place only due to the negligence of the deceased; that the deceased did not have a valid licence and was not wearing helmet at the time of accident; and that in any case, the compensation claimed was excessive.

¶24

Before the Tribunal, the claimant/first respondent examined P.W.

¶25

1 to P.W.3 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.17. The appellant examined R.W.1 and R.W.2 and marked Exs.R1 and R2.

¶26

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

¶27

Page No. 2 of 8

¶28

C.M.A.(MD) No.1015 of 2024

¶29

The Tribunal, after taking into consideration the oral and

¶30

documentary evidence, held that the rider of the offending vehicle was guilty of rash and negligent driving and directed the appellant to pay the total compensation of Rs.20,76,200/-.

¶31

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the accident took place almost in the center of the road; and that the deceased did not wear helmet and he did not have a valid licence at the time of accident and hence, the Tribunal at least ought to have fixed contributory negligence on the deceased and prayed for reduction of the compensation.

¶32

The learned counsel for the first respondent, per contra, submitted that the FIR and the Final Report were filed against the rider of the offending vehicle; and that the evidence of PW3/eyewitness would show that the rider of the offending vehicle was guilty of negligence and hence, the finding of the Tribunal need not be interfered with.

¶33

The only question in the instant appeal is ‘whether the finding on negligence is justified?’

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 3 of 8_

¶35

C.M.A.(MD) No.1015 of 2024

¶36

The claimant had examined P.W.3/eyewitness, as stated earlier,

¶37

to prove the manner of the accident. The rider of the offending vehicle insured with the appellant was examined as R.W.1. It is a fact that the FIR was lodged against the rider of the offending vehicle and the police, after investigation, filed the final report against the rider of the offending vehicle/R.W.1.

¶38

Ex.P4/rough sketch prepared by the Police would show that the accident took place almost in the center of the road and more towards the eastern part of the road. The rider of the offending vehicle was proceeding from south to north, which would suggest that he was on the wrong side of the road. At the same time, the deceased also could have avoided the accident if he had exercised due care and caution. The rough sketch/Ex.P4 and the evidence of P.W.3 and R.W.1 would suggest that the contributory negligence on the side of the deceased cannot be ruled out.

¶39

Considering the fact that the rider of the offending vehicle was on the wrong side of the road, that is, more towards the eastern side of the road and the accident was predominantly caused by the rider of the offending vehicle, the contributory negligence on the deceased can be

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 4 of 8_

¶41

C.M.A.(MD) No.1015 of 2024

¶42

fixed at 15%. Though P.W.3/eyewitness had stated that the deceased was

¶43

not wearing helmet, contributory negligence cannot be inferred on that ground alone. Further, there is no evidence to show that the deceased did not have a valid licence. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the contributory negligence can be fixed at 15% on the deceased. The learned counsel for the appellant is unable to point out any infirmity in the quantum of compensation. Since the learned counsel for the first respondent would submit that no compensation was awarded towards transport expenses, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded under the said head. The award of the Tribunal is thus modified as follows:

¶44

*S.N* o	*Description*		*Amount* *awarded by the* *Tribunal*	*Amount* *awarded by* *this Court*	*Award* *confirmed,* *enhanced or* *granted*
1	Loss of dependency		Rs. 19,99,200/-	Rs. 19,99,200/-	Confirmed
2	Loss of estate		Rs. 16,500/-	Rs. 16,500/-	Confirmed
3	Parental consortium		Rs. 44,000/-	Rs. 44,000/-	Confirmed
4	Funeral expenses		Rs. 16,500/-	Rs. 16,500/-	Confirmed
5	Transport expenses		---	Rs.15,000/-	Granted
		Total	Rs.20,76,200/-	Rs.20,91,200/-
	15% contri negl	butory igence		(-)Rs. 3,13,680/-
				Rs.17,77,520/-	Reduced by Rs.2,98,680/-

¶45

The appellant/Insurance Company is directed to pay 85% of the

¶46

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

¶47

Page No. 5 of 8

¶48

C.M.A.(MD) No.1015 of 2024

¶49

compensation amount which is equal to Rs.17,77,520/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Seventy Seven Thousand Five Hundred and Twenty only) together with interest at 7.5% p.a., from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶50

On such deposit, the first respondent/claimant is permitted to

¶51

withdraw the award amount with interest and costs, less the amount already withdrawn, if any, by filing appropriate application before the Tribunal.

¶52

In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed.

¶53

No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶54

30.10.2024

¶55

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No apd

¶56

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

¶57

____________ Page No. 6 of 8_

¶58

C.M.A.(MD) No.1015 of 2024

¶59

¶60

1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Court, Virudhungar.

¶61

2.The Section Officer, V.R. Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 7 of 8_

¶63

C.M.A.(MD) No.1015 of 2024

¶64

SUNDER MOHAN,J

¶65

apd

¶66

C.M.A.(MD) No.1015 of 2024

¶67

30.10.2024

¶68

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 8 of 8_

The Branch Manager v. Indhirani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Branch Manager v. Indhirani

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

Manikandan Vs The Divisional Manager

The Managing Director, Vs Mary Shakila

Arumuga Nainar, Vs Karthick @ Avudaiyappan

A.Shanthi Vs J.Rajendran

Adhnan Modi Vs I.Farhana

Ajeesh Kumar.S Vs Shilaja T.R.