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) 3216

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V.M. VELUMANI, T.V. THAMILSELVI, JJ.
The Manager, M/s. IFFCO – TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai - Appellant
Versus
Loganayagi & Others - Respondent
C.M.A. No. 24 of 2021 & C.M.P. No. 222 of 2021
Decided On : 12-09-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant:J. Michael Visuvasam, Advocate. For the Respondents:RR 1 to R4, K. Suryanarayanan, Advocate.

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

Headnote:

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Insurance - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173 - The judgment discusses the accident that led to the death of Kamalakannan and the subsequent claim for compensation. The court analyzed the evidence and held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the rider of the motorcycle belonging to the 5th respondent. The court confirmed the award of Rs.17,98,000 as compensation to the claimants.

Fact of the Case:

The claimants filed a petition seeking compensation for the death of Kamalakannan in a motorcycle accident. The appellant, an insurance company, denied the allegations and claimed contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The Tribunal found the accident occurred due to the negligent driving by the rider of the motorcycle belonging to the 5th respondent and awarded compensation to the claimants.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving by the rider of the motorcycle belonging to the 5th respondent and confirmed the award of compensation to the claimants.

Issues: Dispute over the cause of the accident, liability of the insurance company, and contributory negligence.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving by the rider of the motorcycle belonging to the 5th respondent, and there was no error in the finding of the Tribunal.

Final Decision: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed, and the award of Rs.17,98,000 as compensation to the claimants was confirmed. The appellant-Insurance Company was directed to deposit the award amount along with interest to the credit of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2019, made in M.C.O.P.No.298 of 2013, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court - Fast Track Court, Kanchipuram.)

V.M. Velumani, J.

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant / Insurance Company against the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2019, made in M.C.O.P.No.298 of 2013, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court - Fast Track Court, Kanchipuram.

2. The appellant is the 2nd respondent in M.C.O.P.No.298 of 2013, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court - Fast Track Court, Kanchipuram. The respondents 1 to 4 / claimants filed the said claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one Kamalakannan, who died in the accident that took place on 04.04.2013.

3. According to the respondents 1 to 4, on 04.04.2013 at about 08.30 p.m., while the deceased Kamalakannan was proceeding in the motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN 21 AB 1396 from Kilambi to Kanchipuram, near Fashion Company at Magamedu, Kilambi Village, the rider of the motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN 21 M 4852 belonging to 5th respondent, who was riding the motorcycle behind the motorcycle driven by the said Kamalakannan, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed on the backside of the motorcycle driven by the said Kamalakannan and caused the accident. In the accident, the said Kamalakannan sustained grievous injuries and died in the Kanchipuram Government Hospital on the same day. Hence, the respondents 1 to 4 filed the said claim petition claiming compensation against the 5th respondent and appellant, being the owner and insurer of the motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN 21 M 4852 respectively.

4. The 5th respondent - owner of the motorcycle motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN 21 M 4852 remained exparte before the Tribunal.

5. The appellant-Insurance Company filed counter statement and denied all the averments made by the respondents 1 to 4 in the claim petition. According to appellant, the allegations stated in the claim petition are false and are invented only for the purpose of claiming compensation from the appellant. As per FIR, it is very clear that the 5th respondent's motorcycle was set up in this case for the purpose of claiming compensation from the appellant. The deceased Kamalakannan only drove the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the unknown vehicle and thereafter a false case was set up as if the 5th respondent dashed on the backside of the motorcycle driven by the deceased. There was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. At the time of accident, the rider of the motorcycle belonging to 5th respondent was not having driving license to ride the motorcycle and the motorcycle belonging to 5th respondent was not having any insurance coverage with the appellant. Hence, the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation to the respondents 1 to 4. The respondents 1 to 4 have to prove that they are the legal heirs of the deceased. The appellant denied the age, avocation and income of the deceased. 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 as against the appellant.

6. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent examined herself as P.W.1, one Murali, eyewitness to the accident was examined as P.W.2 and one Meenakumari, Secretary of the Kilambi Village Co-operative Town Bank Limited was examined as P.W.3 and 14 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P14. The appellant examined one Muthu, Sub Inspector of Police, Baluchetty Chatram as R.W.1, one Haridoss, Investigation Officer of the appellant as R.W.2 and Dr.Abinandaraju, Assistant Surgeon, Kancheepuram Government Hospital as R.W.3 and marked 4 documents as

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