Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 189
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V.M. VELUMANI, J.
The New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Ors - Appellant
Versus
R.Manoj Kumar and Ors - Respondent
C.M.A.Nos.373 & 374 of 2015 and Cros.Obj.No.66 of 2015 M.P.Nos.1, 2 of 2015
Decided on : 04-01-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.R.Neethi Perumal
For the Respondent: Mr. N.Manokaran, Mr. A.Shanmugaraj, Mr. K.Suryanarayanan
Headnote:
Insurance Company - Motor Accident Claims - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sections 149, 170 - The court discussed the liability of the insurance company, the negligence of the driver, and the quantum of compensation awarded. Key legal provisions include Sections 149 and 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which establish the liability of the insurer and the grounds for raising all defenses.
Fact of the Case:
The claimants sought compensation for injuries sustained in a motor accident. The court found the driver of the van negligent and held the insurance company liable to pay compensation. The issues included the liability of the insurer and the quantum of compensation. The court applied the multiplier method for compensation and reduced the awarded amounts.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the driver of the van negligent and held the insurance company liable for compensation. The court also reduced the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal.
Issues: The issues included the liability of the insurer, the negligence of the driver, the quantum of compensation, and the maintainability of the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, specifically Sections 149 and 170, to establish the liability of the insurer and the grounds for raising all defenses. The court also considered the evidence and medical bills to determine the quantum of compensation.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeals, dismissed the cross-objection, and reduced the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal. The insurance company was directed to deposit the modified award amount, and the claimants were permitted to withdraw their respective award amount with accrued interest.
1. C.M.A.Nos.373 and 374 of 2015 are filed by the Insurance Company against the award dated 25.09.2014 made in M.C.O.P.Nos.1400 of 2009 & 728 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, IV Small Causes Court, Chennai.
Cross Appeal is filed by the claimant for enhancement of compensation granted by the award dated 25.09.2014 made in M.C.O.P.No.728 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, IV Small Causes Court, Chennai.
2. All the two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals and the Cross Appeal are arising out of the same accident and common award and hence, they are disposed of by this common judgment.
3. Parties in these appeals are referred to by their respective ranks in the claim petitions for the sake of convenience.
4. The appellant, first respondents and second respondent in C.M.A.Nos.373 and 374 of 2015 are second respondent/Insurance Company, claimants and first respondent in M.C.O.P.Nos.1400 of 2009 & 728 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, IV Small Causes Court, Chennai. The fourth respondent in C.M.A.No.373 of 2015 is the subsequent owner of the two wheeler. The claimants filed the said claim petitions claiming a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- and Rs.10,00,000/- respectively, as compensation for the injuries sustained by them in the accident that took place on 20.03.2009.
5. According to the claimants, while they were travelling as pillion riders in Honda Activa bearing Registration No.TN-06-1290, driver of the van belonging to the first respondent drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two wheeler, in which, the claimants travelled and caused the accident. Both the claimants sustained injuries and were admitted in Malar Hospital, Adyar, Chennai and took treatment as in-patients and underwent surgeries. Subsequently, due to swelling and infection, both the claimants were again admitted in the hospital and plates fixed were removed. The accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the van and the first respondent as owner of the van and second respondent as insurer are liable to pay the compensation to the claimants.
6. The first respondent/owner of the van filed counter statement and denied that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the van. The first respondent contended that the rider of the two wheeler suddenly turned right side of the road and lost control and invited the accident. The owner and insurer of the two wheeler are necessary parties and in any event, the van is insured with the second respondent and if any compensation is awarded, only the second respondent/Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation.
7. The second respondent/Insurance Company filed counter statement and denied the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.728 of 2012 viz., J.Vikramasingh, who was aged 16 years, was rider of the two wheeler with the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.1400 of 2009 as a pillion rider. The rider of the two wheeler was not having driving license at the time of the accident. He suddenly turned towards Southern side to enter into Ranimeyyamai towers and hit the van belonging to the first respondent, who was proceeding southern side of the road. The accident occurred only due to the negligent driving by the rider of the two wheeler. In any event, the contributory negligence has to be fixed on the part of the rider of the two wheeler. The rider of the two wheeler, who is the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.728 of 2012, was aged 16 years at the time of accident and he does not know driving and was not having driving license. Owner and insurer of the two wheeler are necessary parties to the claim petitions. The amount of compensation claimed by the claimants are excessive.
8. The claimant in M.C.O.P.No.728 of 2012, who is third responden
