Appeal by insurer challenging compensation award to petitioner for road accident. Court found appellant failed to prove accident date or vehicle non-involvement. Appeal dismissed, award confirmed.
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal dismissed; impugned award confirmed; appellant directed to deposit award amount.
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.(MD).No.1871 of 2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 15.02.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
C.M.A.(MD).No.1871 of 2013
The Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd., 3, Main Road, Dindigul. .. Appellant/2nd Respondent Vs.
1.G.Seenivasan .. 1st Respondent/Petitioner 2.V.Madasamy .. 2nd Respondent/1st Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Order Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, to set aside the award and decree dated 20.06.2013 made in M.C.O.P.No.388 of 2012 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Sub-Court), Dindigul.
For Appellant : Mr.B.Vijay Karthikeyan For Respondents : Mr.A.Saravanan for R-1 No appearance for R-2
Page 1 of 10
C.M.A.(MD).No.1871 of 2013
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed as against the order passed in M.C.O.P.No.388 of 2012 dated 20.06.2013 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Sub-Court), Dindigul, wherein, the first respondent herein has filed a petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident.
On 18.12.2005 at about 5.00 PM, when the petitioner was proceeding near Sholavandan – Kallupatti Cross Road, a TVS XL vehicle bearing Page 2 of 10
C.M.A.(MD).No.1871 of 2013
Registration No.TN 59 R 7831 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner, due to which, he sustained fracture and injuries and therefore, he claimed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation.
The claim petition is false and not maintainable either on law or on facts. The accident took place only due to the negligence on the part of the petitioner, who crossed the road without noticing the vehicles passing the road. Since the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the petitioner, the second respondent is no way liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Hence, the claim petition is liable to be dismissed.
C.M.A.(MD).No.1871 of 2013
given as an after thought and the claim petition was filed. Hence, the claim petition is liable to be dismissed.
were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 were marked. On the side of the respondents, R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and Ex.R1 was marked.
C.M.A.(MD).No.1871 of 2013
in Vadipatti Government Hospital. Ex.R1, Accident Register, was marked through the Doctor, who admitted the petitioner in the hospital and the Doctor was also examined as R.W.1. By examining the witnesses and marking the documents, the appellant/second respondent proved that the accident did not occur on 18.12.2005 and the first respondent vehicle was included after thought. But the above said aspects have not been considered by the Tribunal. Hence, the order passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside.
C.M.A.(MD).No.1871 of 2013
admitted the accident and final report was filed before the Judicial Magistrate Court. The appellant/second respondent failed to examine any witness from the Police Department, who investigated the case and thereby, the Tribunal after considering all these issues ordered compensation of Rs.54,300/- and therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
respondent/first respondent vehicle was involved in the accident?
Points:
hospital for the injuries sustained by Seenivasan as stated in Ex.R1, Page 6 of 10
C.M.A.(MD).No.1871 of 2013
Accident Register. However, the same R.W.1 during cross-examination stated that she did not give treatment to the petitioner and no intimation was given to the jurisdictional Police in respect of the accident. She also admitted that she did not know whether the present petitioner and the name mentioned in Ex.R1 were one and the same.
Page 7 of 10
C.M.A.(MD).No.1871 of 2013
appellant/second respondent failed to prove his contention that the first respondent vehicle was not involved in the accident and awarded a sum of Rs.54,300/- as compensation to the petitioner.
C.M.A.(MD).No.1871 of 2013
Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the impugned award passed in
M.C.O.P.No.388 of 2012 dated 20.06.2013 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Sub-Court), Dindigul is confirmed. The appellant/second respondent is directed to deposit the entire award amount within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not already deposited. There shall be no order as to costs.
15.02.2024
NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Lm
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Sub-Court), Dindigul.
2.The Section Officer, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
Page 9 of 10
C.M.A.(MD).No.1871 of 2013
P.DHANABAL , J.
Lm
C.M.A.(MD).No.1871 of 2013
15.02.2024
Page 10 of 10
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the accident occurred on 18.12.2005 involving the first respondent's vehicle despite respondent's denial?
Whether the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the Insurance Company is liable to be allowed?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd.
1.G.Seenivasan
2.V.Madasamy
P.DHANABAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
