Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 1306
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. MAHADEVAN. J.
M/s. United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Thiruvallur – Appellant
Versus
S. Baby Latha & Others – Respondent
C.M.A. No. 1916 of 2017 & C.M.P. No. 10308 of 2017
Decided On : 02-11-2020
For the Appellant :R. Rathna Thara, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 & R2, K. Varadhakamaraj, Advocate, R3, Ex parte.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of different sections of the Motor Vehicles Act in determining compensation and addressing the liability of the insurance company.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation - Section 163-A, Section 166, Section 140 - [KEYWORD] - [Compensation under Motor Vehicles Act] - [Section 163-A, Section 166, Section 140] - The court discussed the applicability of Section 163-A and Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act in determining compensation, the liability of the insurance company, and the factors influencing the award of compensation. The court also highlighted the interpretation of the legal provisions and their impact on the decision.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased met with a fatal accident involving a parked lorry, leading to a claim petition for compensation. The Tribunal awarded compensation, which was challenged by the appellant insurance company.
Finding of the Court:
The court rejected the appellant's contentions regarding the application of Section 163-A and Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and upheld the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The court also addressed the liability of the insurance company and the contributory negligence of the deceased.
Issues: The issues revolved around the applicability of different sections of the Motor Vehicles Act in determining compensation, the liability of the insurance company, and the contributory negligence of the deceased.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the mere mention of Section 163-A in the claim petition does not preclude the claimants from seeking enhancement of compensation. The court also emphasized the onus on the insurance company to prove the absence of a valid driving license and the influence of alcohol, and the impact of contributory negligence on the compensation.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, directing the appellant insurance company to deposit the modified award of compensation within a specified period.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment and decree dated 26.09.2016 made in MCOP No.807 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, II Additional District Judge, Thiruvallur at Poonamallee.)
1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company against the judgment and decree dated 26.09.2016 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, II Additional District Judge, Thiruvallur at Poonamallee, in MCOP No.807 of 2011.
2. The case in brief, is as follows:
On 30.07.2011 at about 22.00 hours, the deceased Selvaraj was riding his TVS-XL motorcycle bearing Reg.No.TN-02-AL-2176 from Ambattur Industrial Estate to Red Hills. A lorry bearing Regn. No.TSD 4779 belonging to the third respondent and insured with the appellant insurance company, was parked on the road without any signal, near Om Shakthi Hotel at Shanmugapuram. Since there was no signal to show that a lorry has been parked there, the deceased-s vehicle dashed against the lorry and due to the impact, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and he died on the way to the hospital. The wife, daughter and father of the deceased, filed a claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- as compensation. The Tribunal, considering the materials and evidence available on record, calculated the compensation at Rs.14,72,000/-, and since the claimants restricted their claim to Rs.8,00,000/-, awarded the said sum of Rs.8,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition, excepting the default period from 22.04.2015 to 03.12.2015. Challenging the said judgment and decree of the Tribunal, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant Insurance Company.
3. Assailing the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal, the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company raised the following contentions:
(i) the Tribunal has erred in awarding a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- as claimed by the claimants, when the claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act; and the Tribunal ought to have awarded only the statutory amount of Rs.50,000/- under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act for “No Fault Liability” in respect of the involvement of lorry, though stationed on the road side.
(ii) the Tribunal erred in fixing the liability on the insurance company, overlooking the facts that P.W.2 is only an interested witness and not proved to be a witness present at the scene of occurrence; Ex.P1-FIR has been registered only against the deceased; and the Case Sheet and Final Report marked as Exs.R1 and R2, respectively, also categorically stated that the deceased was rash and negligent in riding his motorcycle and dashed against the stationed lorry; and the deceased did not possess valid driving licence and he was in drunken mood at the time of accident; and in such circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have ordered pay and recovery.
Stating so, the learned counsel prayed to allow this appeal by setting aside the judgment impugned herein.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the first and second respondents/claimants, referring to the judgment of this Court in P.Radhakrishnan v. M.Murugesan, reported in 2011 (2) TN MAC 515, has submitted that a mere mention of Section 163-A in the claim petition by itself is not a ground to reject the claim of the claimants seeking enhancement of award. The learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunal has considered the materials and evidence in accordance with law and has quantified the total compensation at Rs.14,72,000/-, however, awarded only a sum of Rs.8,00,000/-, as claimed by the claimants, which is erroneous; mere fact that the claimants have confined their claim to Rs.8,00,000/-, cannot be a criteria in granting fair and reasonable compensation for the death of the deceased; and hence, the Tribunal ought to ha
