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

2024 Supreme(Mad) 211

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
L. VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
V. Vignesh Mani - Appellant
Versus
P.S. Kesava Manohar & Anr. - Respondents
C.M.A. (MD) No. 619 of 2018
Decided On : 03-01-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant:R. Senthil Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents:R2, C. Jawahar Ravindran, Advocate, R1, Exparte.

Headnote:

Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation Enhancement - Section 173 - M.C.O.P.No.738 of 2009 - 279, 337, 304A of IPC - Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 - The court discussed the negligent driving, insurance coverage, and violations of policy conditions by the first respondent. The court applied the pay and recover rule and awarded compensation for partial permanent disability, pain and suffering, transportation, medical expenses, loss of amenities, future mental and physical shock, and attendant charges. The compensation was enhanced based on the judgment in Master Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sustained grievous injuries in a road accident and filed a claim seeking compensation. The court found the first respondent liable for the accident due to negligent driving and violations of policy conditions. The court awarded compensation for medical expenses, partial permanent disability, pain and suffering, transportation, loss of amenities, future mental and physical shock, and attendant charges.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the first respondent liable for the accident and applied the pay and recover rule to award compensation to the petitioner. The court also enhanced the compensation based on the judgment in Master Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Issues: Negligent driving, insurance coverage, violations of policy conditions, and assessment of compensation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the first respondent's negligent driving and violations of policy conditions made them liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. The court also considered the judgment in Master Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. to enhance the compensation.

Final Decision: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands partly allowed, and the second respondent/insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount with interest for the petitioner.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, to modify the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.738 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District and Sessions Judge), Communal Clash Cases Court, Madurai dated 22.02.2016.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed as against the judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District and Sessions Judge), Communal Clash Cases Court, at Madurai in M.C.O.P.No.738 of 2009 dated 22.02.2016 by the appellant/petitioner/claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are addressed herein as per the rank in M.C.O.P.No.738 of 2009.

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is as follows:-

(i) A gruesome accident took place on Theni-Madurai Highways Road, at Poochipatty, Vadikaruppu Kovil on 02.03.2008 at about 13.45 horus. The petitioner was travelling in a Maruti Alto car bearing registration No.TN-59-AZ-3420 with his family members from west to east direction, which was driven by its driver in a slow and moderate speed in extreme left side of the road. While so a Scorpio car bearing registration No.KL-06-D-3535, which was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came from the opposite direction in a very speed and dashed against the Maruti Alto car. As the result of which, Maruti Alto car was capsized and the petitioner sustained grievous injuries all over the body including severe injury in the head. The injuries sustained by the petitioner detailed as under:-

“(A) Comminuted left patriod tempora fracture with extradural Hematoma.

(B) Post traumatic carotiod cavern fistula type A.

(C) Fracture of Med wall and roof of orbit.

(D) Redness swelling of left eye.

(E) The fracture of 2nd, 3rd, 4th metatarsal bones.”

(ii) Immediately after the accident, the petitioner was taken to Apollo hospital, K.K.Nagar Madurai wherein he took treatment as inpatient from 02.03.2008 to 20.03.2008. At the time of accident, the petitioner was minor and aged eight years. Since the petitioner's health condition became serious, Apollo Hospital, Madurai referred him to Sri Ramachandran Medical Centre, Porur, Chennai and the petitioner is continuously under treatment as out patient even thereafter. The total medical expenses incurred was Rs.6,25,000/-. The petitioner was studying third standard in Dolphin School at Madurai at the time of accident. The petitioner sustained multiple grievous injuries all over the body including severe head injury, committed left parotio temporal fracture with extradural Hematoma and post traumatic left carotid cavernous fistuala type A and swelling of left eye. The accident caused permanent disability to the petitioner and he is unable to do his previous work and the accident resulted in continuous head ache, vomiting, giddiness, loss of left eye vision, facial disfiguration and loss of memory power and he is the only son of the family. The accident caused mental agony and torture to his family members. The accident took place within the jurisdiction of Usilampatti Talak Police station. A criminal case under Sections 279, 337, 304A of IPC was registered against the first respondent's driver and the same was pending before the Judicial Magistrate No.I Court, at Usilampatti. For the injuries sustained, the petitioner had filed M.C.O.P.No.738 of 2009 seeking compensation claiming Rs.10,00,000/-.

4. The first respondent is the owner of the Scorpio car involved in the accident and the second respondent is the insurance company. The second respondent had filed a counter refuting the various allegations in the application of the petitioner claiming compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/-. The various allegations in various columns

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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