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

2023 Supreme(Mad) 1197

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R. THARANI, J.
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, through its Divisional Manager, Madurai – Appellant
Versus
Surya & Others – Respondents
C.M.A(MD)Nos. 691 & 692 of 2020
Decided On : 01-03-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant:E. Chandrasekaran, Advocate. For the Respondents:R1, D. Senthil, Advocate, R2, No appearance.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of liability and contributory negligence in motor vehicle accident compensation claims.

Headnote:

Motor Vehicle Act - Compensation Claims - Section 173 - M.C.O.P.No.45 of 2015, M.C.O.P.No.46 of 2015 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the liability of the rider and pillion rider of the two-wheeler, the bus driver, and the contributory negligence. The judgment also addressed the quantum of compensation and the interest rate. Key legal provisions such as contributory negligence and quantum of compensation were crucial in influencing the court's decision.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved two separate claims for compensation arising from a motor vehicle accident. The claimants sustained injuries and sought compensation for the damages incurred.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that both the rider and pillion rider of the two-wheeler, as well as the bus driver, were liable for the accident. Contributory negligence was fixed at 25%. The quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was reduced, and the interest rate was set at 7.5% per annum.

Issues: The key issues revolved around the liability of the parties involved in the accident, the determination of contributory negligence, and the quantum of compensation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that both the rider and pillion rider of the two-wheeler, as well as the bus driver, were liable for the accident and fixed contributory negligence at 25%. The court also determined that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was reasonable and reduced it accordingly.

Final Decision: The appeals were partly allowed, and the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was reduced. The appellant/Insurance Company was directed to deposit the reduced compensation amount with interest and costs to the credit of the respective claim petitions within a specified period.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, to set aside the decree and judgment passed in M.C.O.P.No.45 of 2015, dated 24.06.2020, on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claim Tribunal cum Sub Judge, Paramakudi.

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, to set aside the decree and judgment passed in M.C.O.P.No.46 of 2015, dated 24.06.2020, on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claim Tribunal cum Sub Judge, Paramakudi.)

Common Judgment:

1. C.M.A(MD)No.691 of 2020 is filed against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.45 of 2015 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Paramakudi. The appellant is the second respondent. The first respondent herein is the claimant and the second respondent herein is the first respondent in the claim petition.

2. C.M.A(MD)No.692 of 2020 is filed against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.46 of 2015 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Paramakudi. The appellant is the second respondent. The first respondent herein is the claimant and the second respondent herein is the first respondent in the claim petition.

3. Brief substance of the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.45 of 2015 is as follows:

On 01.08.2014, when the petitioner and another person, boarded a TVS Scooty bearing registration number TN 65 P 1300 before moving the vehicle, a bus bearing registration number TN 65C 5836, came in a rash and negligent manner, overtaking a car dashed against the motorcycle. The petitioner sustained injuries. He was taken to Paramakudi Government Hospital for treatment. After getting first aid, he was admitted in Madurai Rajaji Government Hospital and he took treatment as inpatient for 20 days. He undergone surgery. Steel plate was affixed and then he took treatment as outpatient. The petitioner sustained permanent disability and he claimed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation.

4. Brief substance of the petition in M.C.O.P.No.46 of 2015 is as follows:

In the above said accident, the petitioner sustained injury, she was given first aid in the Paramakudi Government Hospital. Then she was admitted in Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai as inpatient. She undergone surgery and steel plate was affixed. She was doing agriculture in her own land and she used to go for doing agricultural coolie work in other lands. She was earning Rs.6,000/- per month and she claimed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation.

5. Brief substance of the counter filed by the second respondent in both the claim petitions is as follows:

The accident has happened only due to the rash and negligent driving of the minor by name Surya. The manner of accident was suppressed. The first respondent driver drove the vehicle in a slow and cautious manner. It was the minior Surya who was rash and negligent and who travelled with two pillion riders, lost his control and fell on the right side portion of the bus and he invited the accident. The two wheeler was not having proper insurance and the rider of the two wheeler was not having valid driving licence. The First Information Report was wrongly given in the name of the bus driver. The petitioners have to prove their age, avocation, income, nature of injuries, treatment particulars. The claim is excessive.

6. A joint trial was conducted in both the cases. In the joint trial, in M.C.O.P.No.45 of 2015, one witness was examined and eleven documents were marked on the side of the petitioner. In M.C.O.P.No.46 of 2015, one witness was examined and nine documents were marked on the side of the petitioner. No witness was examined and no document was marked on the side of the respondent. One witness was examined as Court witness and one document was marked as Ex.C1. A common judgment was pronounced by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,95,000/- as compensation in M.C.O.P.No.45 of 2015 and has awarded Rs.2,35,000/- as compensation in

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