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
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
The main legal point established is the application of negligence principles and the determination of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, based on the evidence presented and relevant leg....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act in determining compensation for accidents involving negligence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove negligence in a claim for accident compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.
The court emphasized the importance of proving the manner of the accident and considered settlements in related cases to determine negligence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of liability in a motor accident case, including contributory negligence and the calculation of compensation under different head....
Liability of the insurance company under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and determination of compensation in road accident cases.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of liability for a motor accident based on the negligence of the drivers involved and the assessment of compensation for injuries....
The court upheld the compensation amount and directed the appellant-Insurance Company to deposit the award amount with interest, based on the determination of negligence and the notional income of th....
The burden of proof in negligence cases, admissibility of medical and police records, and principles for calculating compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.
The court affirmed the principle of attributing liability based on evidence of rash and negligent driving, and upheld the application of the multiplier method for calculating loss of earning capacity....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.