Back
2003 Supreme(Mad) 2004
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE E. PADMANABHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. KRISHNAN
The National Insurance Co., Ltd.& Others - Appellant
Versus
Smt.Sujaya C.Moorthy & Others - Respondents
C.M.A. Nos. 807 and 808 of 1995 and CMA Nos:1088 and 1089 of 1994
Decided On : 12 December 2003
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of liability for compensation in cases of motor accidents involving composite negligence of drivers and the apportionment of compensation among claimants.
Headnote:
Negligence - Motor Accident Claims - Composite negligence of drivers - Rash and negligent driving of vehicles - Liability of owners and insurers - Compensation for loss of income, pain and suffering, medical expenses, and permanent disability - Apportionment of compensation among claimants - Interest on compensation - Dismissal of appeals by National Insurance Company
Fact of the Case:
The case involved multiple appeals arising from a motor accident claim. The accident occurred when a car and a lorry collided, resulting in the death of one occupant and injuries to others. The claimants sought compensation for the loss of income, pain and suffering, medical expenses, and permanent disability.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accident was caused by the composite negligence of both drivers and apportioned the liability for compensation accordingly. It also determined the quantum of compensation for each claimant, considering loss of income, pain and suffering, medical expenses, and permanent disability. The court dismissed the appeals by the National Insurance Company.
Issues: The main issues considered by the court included the cause of the accident, liability of the drivers, apportionment of compensation, and quantum of compensation for various claimants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the accident was caused by the composite negligence of both drivers and apportioned the liability for compensation accordingly. It also determined the quantum of compensation for each claimant, considering loss of income, pain and suffering, medical expenses, and permanent disability.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals by the National Insurance Company and directed the apportionment and payment of compensation to the claimants as per its findings.
E.Padmanabhan, J.
CMA.No.807 of 1995 has been preferred by the National Insurance Company as against the award and decree dated 7.4.1994 made in MCOP.No:131 of 1990 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Dindigul.
CMA.No.808 of 1995 has been preferred by the same National Insurance Company being aggrieved by the award and decree dated 7.4.1994 made in MCOP.No:132 of 1990 on the file of the same Tribunal.
2. CMA.No.1088 of 1994 has been preferred by the claimants 1 to 4 being aggrieved by the judgement and award dated 7.4.1994 made in MCOP.No.131 of 1990 in so far as the claimants were aggrieved by the finding that the accident has been caused by the Car bearing Registration No.TAA 3618 by its Driver and in so far as the portion of the claim has been disallowed by the Tribunal below.
3. CMA.No:1089 of 1994 has been preferred by the claimant .Shyalaja C.Murthy as against the award and decree dated 7.4.194 made in MCOP.No.131 of 1990 on the file of the same Tribunal in so far as the Tribunal held that the accident has been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the Car TAA.3618 and in so far as the substantial portion of her claim has been negatived by the said Tribunal.
4. Heard Mr.K.S.Narasimhan and Mr.Venkateswaran, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr.N.Rosinaidu, learned counsel appearing and Mr.R.Sree Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
5. As all these appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 7.4.1994 made in MCOP.Nos.131,132, and 397 of 1990 on the file of the District Court, Dindigual, the above four appeals were consolidated and taken up together. With the consent of counsel on either side, the appeals are taken up for final disposal.
6. With respect to one more Claim Petition namely MCOP.No.397 of 1990 there is no information as to whether any appeal has been preferred or subsequently the claimants have represented the papers after impleading necessary parties and therefore the present four appeals alone are taken up for consideration in this batch of appeals and disposed of on merits on the available materials.
7. On 13.8.1989 around 9.25 a.m., on Dindigul-Vedasendur Main Road near Thadikombu village, the Car bearing Registration No:TAA.3618 and the Lorry bearing registration No. TAN.3274 collided which has given rise to the two claim petitions MCOPs 131 and 132 of 1990 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Dindigal. In MCOP.No.131 of 1990, the legal heirs of deceased Chidambara Murthy have claimed the compensation for the death of the said Chidambara Murthy while in MCOP.No:132 of 1990, Shylaja C.Murthy, daughter of the said Chidamabara Murthy who is also one of the claimant inMCOP.No.131 of 1990 claimed compensation for the personal injuries sustained by her in the said accident as she was also a passenger along with her father Chidambara Murthy in the said Car at the time of accident.
8. As the two claim arose out of the same accident involving the car and the lorry the common facts leading to the Claim Petitions and appeals are set out:
9. The deceased Chidambara Murthy was employed as an Officer in Canara Bank. The deceased along with his daughter Shylaja C.Murthy was returning from Bangalore to Madurai on 13.8.1989 at 21.25 hrs and proceeding towards Madurai on Dindigul-Vedasendur Main Road. When their car was crossing Kudaganar River bridge, which is 8 k.m., from Dindigual Taluk Police Station, the accident took place. The car TAA3618 was owned by Canara Bank in which the deceased was employed as an officer. It is admitted that he proceeded on an official duty from Madurai to Bangalore and was returning from Bangalore to Madurai on the ill-fated day. The Driver of the car was one Selvaraj and his heirs instituted MCOP.No.397 of 1990 and on technical grounds the said Claim petition was ordered to be returned for impleading the owner of the car as well as the insurer of the car and lorry. As already pointed out we are not d
