Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V.M. VELUMANI, J.
M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited, Chennai - Appellant
Versus
M. Bakiavathi & Others - Respondent
C.M.A. No. 1723 of 2020 & C.M.P. No. 12759 of 2020
Decided On : 17-03-2021
Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation - 166, 163A - The court held that the appellant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the respondents 1 to 4, along with interest and costs. The appellant- Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award amount along with interest and costs, less the amount if any already deposited, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.1271 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, II Small Causes Court, Chennai. On such deposit, the respondents 1, 2 & 4 are permitted to withdraw their respective share of the award amount as per the ratio of apportionment fixed by the Tribunal along with proportionate interest and costs after adjusting the amount, if any already withdrawn, by filing necessary applications before the Tribunal. The share of the minor 3rd respondent is directed to be deposited in any one of the Nationalized Banks, till the minor 3rd respondent attains majority. On such deposit, the 1st respondent, being the Mother of the minor 3rd respondent is permitted to withdraw the accrued interest once in three months for the welfare of the minor 3rd respondent. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
Fact of the Case:
The respondents 1 to 4 filed a claim petition claiming compensation for the death of Mani in a motorcycle accident. The appellant, an insurance company, denied the claim, stating that the deceased was not a third party and the claim petition was not maintainable under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal found the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased and directed the appellant to pay compensation to the respondents 1 to 4.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the appellant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the respondents 1 to 4, along with interest and costs.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant was liable to pay compensation to the respondents 1 to 4 for the death of the deceased in a motorcycle accident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the deceased had paid an additional premium for Personal Accident coverage, and based on previous judgments, held the appellant liable to pay the compensation. The court also upheld the award of interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum when compensation is awarded under Personal Accident coverage.
Final Decision: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed, and the appellant- Insurance Company was directed to deposit the award amount along with interest and costs to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.1271 of 2016. The respondents were permitted to withdraw their respective share of the award amount, and the share of the minor 3rd respondent was directed to be deposited in a Nationalized Bank until the minor attains majority.
JUDGMENT :
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated 11.11.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.1271 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, II Small Causes Court, Chennai.
1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed to set aside the award dated 11.11.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.1271 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, II Small Causes Court, Chennai.
2. The appellant is the 2nd respondent in M.C.O.P.No.1271 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, II Small Causes Court, Chennai. The respondents 1 to 4 filed the said claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one Mani, who died in the accident that took place on 01.10.2012.
3. According to respondents 1 to 4, on 01.10.2012 at about 09.30 P.M., the deceased Mani was riding the motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN 18 Z 4464 on the Thiruverkadu – Ambathur road. While he was nearing Thiruverkadu, there was no street light in that area and some Bullock Carts were standing in the middle of the road. The deceased Mani noticed the Bullock Carts only when he was nearing them. Immediately on seeing the Bullock Carts, the said Mani applied sudden brake, fell down and sustained head injury. Inspite of treatment, the said Mani succumbed to injuries in the Hospital. Therefore, the respondents 1 to 4 filed the said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation against the 5th respondent Mani and appellant-Insurance Company, being the owner and insurer of the motorcycle respectively.
4. The 5th respondent-owner of the motorcycle being dead remained exparte before the Tribunal.
5. The appellant-Insurance Company, being the insurer of the motorcycle filed counter statement and denied all the averments made by the respondents 1 to 4. According to the appellant, the claim petition itself has been strangely filed for the death of 5th respondent, who himself was the owner of the motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN 18 Z 4464. The 5th respondent is not a Third Party and hence, the claim petition filed by the respondents 1 to 4 is not maintainable. As per F.I.R. in Crime No.1364/PH2/2012 on the file of the Poonamallee Traffic Police Station, it is found that the deceased fell down from his own motorcycle and due to the same, this is a case of 'self-fall' and hence, the claim petition is not maintainable under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The respondents 1 to 4 cannot be considered as third party as they are the legal heirs of the deceased, who is the 5th respondent. The respondents 1 to 4 have to prove that the 5th respondent's motorcycle was insured with the appellant at the time of accident vide policy number 012001/31/12/01/00004392 from 15.06.2012 to 14.06.2013 by producing valid documents. The appellant denied the manner of accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. The respondents 1 to 4 have to prove that they are the legal heirs of the deceased and also the deceased was possessing valid driving license at the time of accident. In any event, the quantum of compensation claimed by the respondents 1 to 4 is highly excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
6. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent examined herself as P.W.1 and 13 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P13. The appellant-Insurance Company examined one B.Senthilvel as R.W.1 and two documents were marked as Exs.R1 & R2.
7. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent riding by the rider of the motorcycle belonging to 5th respondent and directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the respondents 1 to 4.
8. Against the said award dated 11.11.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.1271 of 2016, the appellant has come out with the present appeal.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
