The New India Assurance v. Nagarajan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.06.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN C.M.A.No.3002 of 2005 and C.M.P.No.15617 of 2005 The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Thanjavur, through its Branch Manager within the jurisdiction of District Munsiff, Thanjavur Taluk and District.
...
Appellant/2nd Respondent Vs 1.Nagarajan 2.Kalaimani ... Respondents/Petitioner/1st Respondent Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment and decree dated 11.01.2005 made in MACTOP No.93 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional Sub Court), at Nagapattinam.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Neethe Perumal For Respondents : Mr.K.Muralidharan for R1
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company against the award of a sum of Rs.31,400/- towards compensation to the first respondent, for the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicle accident.
2.The case in brief, is as follows:
On the fateful day, ie. on 05.12.2002 at about 5.30 pm, the first respondent was walking in the mud road in Vellipalayam. At that time, a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.TN-51-B-2351 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him. Due to the said impact, he sustained grievous injuries. The first respondent filed a claim petition before the Tribunal. On consideration of the materials and evidence available on record,
the Tribunal arrived at the total compensation at Rs.31,400/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a., from the date of petition. 3.Challenging the same, the appellant Insurance Company has filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 4.The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company has submitted that the Tribunal having found that the rider of the motorcycle involved in the accident, bearing Registration No.TN-51-B-2351, insured with the appellant/Insurance Company was not holding an effective and valid driving license, had erroneously fastened the liability on the appellant/Insurance Company. It is also submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and exorbitant.
5.The learned counsel for the first respondent has submitted that the Tribunal has correctly considered the materials and evidence available on record and has arrived at the compensation, which is just and reasonable and hence the same need not be interfered with by this Court. 6.Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record carefully and meticulously. 7.One Prabhakaran, who was working as Office Assistant in the Insurance Company has been examined as RW1. He deposed before the Tribunal that the vehicle involved in the accident was insured from 29.01.2002 to 28.01.2003. Even though the Insurance Company has refused to give compensation on the ground that no proper notice has been sent to them, the Tribunal relied upon Ex.
R1-Insurance Policy from which, it is seen that at the time of the accident there was valid insurance coverage to the motorcycle. As per Ex.R6/Motor Vehicle Inspector Report, it is seen that only the driver of the motorcycle has caused the accident. Therefore the Tribunal fixed the liability on the appellant/Insurance Company and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said finding.
8.With regard to compensation, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.14,400/- towards loss of future earning on account of permanent disability, Rs.7,000/- towards transportation expenses, extra nourishment and attendant charges and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering and arrived at the total compensation of Rs.31,400/-. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal under the above heads are very reasonable and hence the same are confirmed.
9.In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. The appellant Insurance Company is directed
to deposit the award amount as ordered by the Tribunal with interest, after deducting the amount if any already deposited, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the first respondent / claimant is permitted to withdraw the same, on making proper application before the Tribunal.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-V) //True copy// Sub Assistant Registrar KM / MTL To 1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam.
2.The Section Officer, VR Section, Madras High Court.
+1cc to Mr.R.Neethe Perumal, Advocate SR.No.48351 C.M.A.No.3002 of 2005 and C.M.P.No.15617 of 2005 SPD(CO) GMY(21/10/2019)