SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(Mad) 1673

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE. C.S. KARNAN
The Branch Manager National Insurance Co., Ltd., Namakkal
Versus
Kalimuthu & Another
C.M.A.No.2076 of 2005
Decided On : 09-04-2010

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant:N. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1, V. Kumaravelan, Advocate.

The key legal point established is the determination of liability and quantum of compensation based on the nature of injuries and disability percentage.

Headnote:

Motor Accident - Compensation - Sections 271, 337, 38 and 304(A) of I.P.C - The court discussed the negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry, the liability of the Insurance Company, and the quantum of compensation. Key legal provisions include Sections 271, 337, 38 and 304(A) of I.P.C, which were used to determine liability and compensation.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner was injured in a motorcycle accident and claimed compensation. The court found the driver of the lorry negligent and upheld the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the lorry driver negligent, upheld the compensation awarded, and confirmed the Tribunal's decision.

Issues: Responsibility for the accident, entitlement to compensation, and quantum of compensation were the key issues.

Ratio Decidendi: The negligence of the lorry driver and the quantum of compensation based on the nature of injuries and disability percentage were the key legal principles.

Final Decision: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed, and the Award and Decree of the Tribunal were confirmed.

Judgment :-

1. The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/second respondent against the Award and Decree, dated 15.12.2004, made in M.C.O.P.No.85 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri, awarding a compensation of Rs.31,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation.

2. Aggrieved by the said Award and Decree, the appellant/second respondent, The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co., Ltd., Namakkal has filed the above appeal praying to scale down the compensation amount granted by the Tribunal.

3. The short facts of the case are as follows:

On 28.02.2003, the petitioner was travelling as a pillion rider on the motorcycle bearing registration No.TN29 P6238, for his urgent medical purpose, from Baiyanapalli to Kundrapalli Junction road. The motorcycle was driven by one Varadaraj on the extreme left side of the road, towards Hosur. When the motorcycle was nearing Arunagiri Rice Mill, a lorry bearing registration No.TN47 A7599 belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed dashed the motorcycle from behind, due to this the rider of the motorcycle lost his control and hit against another motorcycle bearing registration No.KA05 R0402, which came on the opposite direction, as such the petitioner along with the rider of the motorcycle, sustained injuries.

4. The said accident was registered by the Kurubarapalli Police Station in Crime No.81/2003 under Sections 271, 337, 38 and 304(A) of I.P.C. the petitioner further submits that immediately after the said accident he was rushed to the Government Hospital, Krishnagiri for preliminary treatment. Thereafter he was referred to St.Johns Medical College Hospital at Bangalore, wherein he had undergone surgical operation for the fracture of the left tibia and fixed two steel plates on the operated region. At the time of the said accident, the petitioner was 21 years old and was doing coconut and vegetable business, earning a sum of Rs.4,000/-per month. Hence, the petitioner claims a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest against the respondents.

5. The second respondent has filed a counter statement denying all the allegations made in the claim petition. The respondent stated that the injured person was travelling as a pillion rider on the motorcycle along with two other persons, which is a violation of motor vehicle traffic rules. The rider of the motorcycle was not in possession of a valid driving licence. The rider of the motorcycle lost his control as a result of riding with three persons on the bike and dashed against the other motorcycle. The recklessness and negligence on the part of the said motorcyclist was apparent. The two motorcyclists and their respective Insurance Companies are necessary parties in this case, but were not added as parties in the claim petition. Hence, this petition is not maintainable against the respondent. The respondent further denies the age, income and avocation of petitioner. Further, the compensation amount is excessive and the rate of interest is on the higher side. Hence, the respondent prays to dismiss the claim petition.

6. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed two issues for the consideration namely:

(i) Who is responsible for the accident?

(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation?

7. On the petitioners side two witnesses were examined as PW1 and PW2 and six documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P6. On the respondents side no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked.

8. The petitioner was examined as PW1. The PW1, in his evidence, had adduced evidence that the motorcycle had been driven by one Varadaraj, and that the petitioner was travelling as a pillion rider on it along with anot









Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top