M/S. United India Insurance v. S. Syed Vasinmuddin

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 08.04.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE C.M.A.No.1566 of 2016 and C.M.P.No.11808 of 2016 The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Legal Departments, Silingi Buildings, No.134, Greams Road, Chennai - 600 002. ... Appellant/Respondent ..Vs..

1.S.Syed Vasinmuddin (minor) ...Petitioner/Claimant Rep. by father & n.f. Syed Mohiuddin 2.R.Karunanithi

...Respondent/Respondent

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Decree and the Judgment dated 20th June, 2014, passed in M.C.O.P.No.4350 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Tribunal (VI-Court of Small Causes), Chennai.

For Appellant : Mr.G.Udaya Sankar For Respondents 1 & 2 : No appearance

J U D G M E N T

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the Award dated 20.06.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (VI-Court of Small Causes), Chennai in MCOP.No.4350 of 2011.

2. The Appellant Insurance Company has challenged the impugned award on the ground that (a) they are not liable to compensate the claimant in view of the policy violation committed by the insured and (b) the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive.

3. Heard Mr.S.Udaya Sankar, learned counsel for the Appellant. There is no representation on the side of the

respondents. Since no adverse orders are going to be passed against the respondents, the appearance of the respondents is unnecessary.

4. The first respondent is the claimant and the second respondent is the insured (owner of the vehicle). The Tribunal has correctly taken into consideration the policy violation committed by the second respondent and has granted pay and recovery rights to the Appellant Insurance Company under the impugned award. Therefore, the first contention of the Appellant insurance company is unsustainable.

5. Insofar as the quantum of compensation awarded to the first respondent/claimant is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- on lump sum basis to the first respondent/claimant. The first respondent/claimant at the time of the accident was a student aged 8 years and he sustained injuries in head and right leg. He has also sustained fracture in tibial shaft. Two Doctors were examined as witnesses, namely Dr.JRR.Thiagarajan, on the side of the claimant and Dr.A.Elango, a registered medical practitioner at Royapettah Government Hospital, on the side of the Appellant Insurance Company. There is no contradiction between the deposition made by Dr.A.Elango as well as Dr.JRR,Thiagarajan.

6. Dr.JRR.Thiagarajan has deposed that the first respondent/claimant has suffered 45% disability and to that effect, a disability certificate was also marked as Ex.P4. However, the Tribunal has fixed the disability only at 20% and by applying just compensation doctrine, the Tribunal has fixed the compensation payable to the first respondent at Rs.3,00,000/-.

7. Before the Tribunal, the first respondent/claimant has filed four documents which were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 which included O.P.Slips issued by the Government Hospital, Royapettah, Chennai, medical prescriptions and the disability certificate. The case of the first respondent/claimant was also supported by the deposition of the Doctors namely Dr.JRR.Thiagarajan and Dr.A.Elango. Since the Tribunal has reduced the disability on its own from 45% to 20%, this Court is of the considered view that the quantum of compensation payable by the Tribunal to the first respondent/claimant at Rs.3,00,000/- cannot be considered to be excessive as alleged by the Appellant. For the foregoing reasons, the second contention raised by the Appellant is also unsustainable.

8. In the result, there is no merit in this Appeal. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal shall stand dismissed. No costs.

9. It is represented by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the entire award amount has already been deposited to the credit of MCOP.No.4350 of 2011. This Court directs the Tribunal to deposit the amount lying to the credit of MCOP.No.4350 of 2011 in fixed deposit in any one of the Nationalised Banks, till he attains majority, since the claimant/first respondent is a minor and the father of the minor claimant is permitted to withdraw the interest once in six months for the welfare of the minor. If the minor has attained the age of majority, it is open for him to file a formal petition to declare him as major. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar nl To

1. The VI-Court of Small Causes, Chennai

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

+1cc to Mr.G.Udayasankar, Advocate Sr.22121 C.M.A.No.1566 of 2016 sr-ii[co] srg 21/09/2021