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

2022 Supreme(Mad) 2606

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V.M. VELUMANI, S. SOUNTHAR, JJ.
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai - Appellant
Versus
Y. Vidyalakshmi & Others - Respondent
C.M.A. Nos. 1110 & 1408 of 2022 & C.M.P. No. 8139 of 2022
Decided On : 22-08-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Parties:B. Siva Kollapan, A. Babu, Advocates.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of liability and quantum of compensation in a motor accident case under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Headnote:

Motor Accident - Compensation - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 173 - 2017 (2) TNMAC 609 (SC) - 2022 5 SCC 107 - The court discussed the accident, liability, and quantum of compensation. The court analyzed the evidence and held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the lorry driver. The court modified the compensation awarded by the Tribunal based on the deceased's income, age, and negligence. The court partly allowed the appeal by the Insurance Company and dismissed the claimants' appeal, reducing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

Fact of the Case:

The claimants sought compensation for the death of Yechuri Viswanath in a motor accident. The Tribunal found the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the lorry driver and awarded compensation. The Insurance Company and claimants appealed against the liability and quantum of compensation.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the accident was caused by the lorry driver's negligence and modified the compensation based on the deceased's income, age, and negligence. The court partly allowed the Insurance Company's appeal and dismissed the claimants' appeal, reducing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

Issues: The issues involved liability for the accident and the quantum of compensation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the accident was caused by the lorry driver's negligence and modified the compensation based on the deceased's income, age, and negligence.

Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeal by the Insurance Company and dismissed the claimants' appeal, reducing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 09.12.2021, made in M.C.O.P.No.1323 of 2019, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 09.12.2021, made in M.C.O.P.No.1323 of 2019, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Court of Small Causes, Chennai.)

Common Judgment

V.M. Velumani, J.

1. C.M.A.No.1110 of 2022 has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company against the award dated 09.12.2021, made in M.C.O.P.No.1323 of 2019, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

2. C.M.A.No.1408 of 2022 has been filed by the appellantsclaimants seeking enhancement of compensation granted by the Tribunal in the award dated 09.12.2021, made in M.C.O.P.No.1323 of 2019, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

3. Both the appeals arise out of same accident and same award and hence, disposed of by this common judgment.

4. The parties are referred to as per their ranks in the claim petition, for the sake of convenience.

5. The claimants filed M.C.O.P.No.1323 of 2019, claiming a sum of Rs.1,93,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one Yechuri Viswanath, who died in the accident that took place on 14.11.2018.

6. According to the claimants, on 14.11.2018, the deceased Yechuri Viswanath was proceeding from T.Nagar to Karapakkam in a Honda Activa scooter bearing Registration No.TN 09 BL 5584. At about 07.45 hours, while he was proceeding from West to East direction on the Sardar Patel Road (SP Road) in front of Central Leather Research Institute (CLRI) Gate, opposite to Hot Chips, the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No.TN 12 J 7826 belonging to 1st respondent, who was driving the lorry on the same direction in a rash and negligent manner endangering public safety, hit the scooter driven by the said Yechuri Viswanath and caused the accident. In the accident, the said Yechuri Viswanath sustained injuries and died on the spot. Hence, the claimants filed the said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.1,93,00,000/- as compensation against the respondents who are the owner and insurer of the lorry respectively.

7. The 1st respondent, the owner of the lorry remained exparte before the Tribunal.

8. The 2nd respondent-Insurance Company filed counter statement and denied all the averments made by the claimants. The 2nd respondent denied the manner of accident as alleged by the claimants. The claimants have to prove that the lorry belonging to 1st respondent was having valid Insurance Policy, R.C.Book, Fitness Certificate, Permit and the driver of the lorry was possessing valid driving license to drive the lorry at the time of accident. If there is any violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy, the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants. According to 2nd respondent, the accident has occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the deceased, who only drove the scooter in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the lorry and invited the accident. Further, the deceased was not wearing helmet at the time of accident. Hence, contributory negligence has to be fixed on the part of the deceased. There is no negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry and the accident has not occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the lorry. The claimants have to prove that they are the legal heirs of the deceased by producing valid documents. The 2nd respondent denied the age, avocation and income of the deceased. In any event, the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimants are highly excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

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
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top