BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 06.06.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

C.M.A(MD)No.494 of 2023

1.Pitchammal,

2.Murugan

3.Gomathi

:Appellants/Petitioners 2 to 4

/vs/

1.Bakkialakshmi

2.The United India Insurance Company Limited,

through its Branch Manager,

Office at No.2, Bhuvaneswari Complex,

Dr.Sankaran Road,

Namakkal – 637 001.

:Respondents 1 and 2/Respondents

1 and 2

3.Esakkiammal

:Respondent No.3/Petitioner No.1

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the

Motor Vehicles Act against the award made in M.C.O.P.No.664 of

2016, dated 19.11.2020, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal(Special Sub-Judge), Tirunelveli.

For Appellants :Mr.T.Selvakumaran

For Respondent-2 :Mr.J.S.Murali

1/9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

JUDGMENT

*************

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the

claimants seeking enhancement of compensation.

2.The parties are referred to herein as per their ranking

before the Tribunal.

3.The deceased Manikandan, aged 28 years at the time of

accident, was a cleaner-cum-driver of the lorry bearing

Registration No. TN 88 9014 belonging to the first respondent and

insured with the second respondent. While the lorry reached near

Theivaseyalpuram, the driver of the lorry drove the vehicle in a

rash and negligent manner and due to heavy jerk, the deceased

who was sitting on the cleaner seat inside the cabin was thorwn

out of the lorry and fell down on the road and the rear wheel of

the lorry run over the deceased and sustained injuries and

immediately he was taken to the Government Hospital

Palayamkottai for treatment and admitted as inpatient and

thereafter succumbed to injuries.Hence the claim petition is filed

by the legal heirs of the deceased Manikandan.

4.It is the case of the second respondent that the claim

2/9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The deceased

was working as driver in the Palani Murugan Lorry Service,

Tuticorin and not working as Cleaner cum driver in the first

respondent's lorry. The deceased fell down from the stopped lorry

and fell down on the road, sustained injuries and died. The first

respondent has violated the policy condition by allowing the

deceased to travel in the lorry as an unauthorized passenger in a

non-transport vehicle and the first respondent has paid premium

only for the driver of the lorry and not for any other person. Hence

prays for dismissal of the claim petition.

5.Before the Tribunal, on the side of the Petitioners, P.W.1 and

P.W.2 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 were marked. On the side

of the respondent,no witness was examined and Ex.R1 to Ex.R3

were marked.

6.On the basis of the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and Ex.R1, it

is seen that the first respondent vehicle has been insured with the

second respondent and a sum of Rs.150/- has been collected as

additional premium. Further the second respondent Insurance

Company has not produced any evidence to prove that the

deceased was an unauthorized passenger and hence the Tribunal

3/9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

has come to the conclusion that it is only the driver of the first

respondent vehicle who was rash and negligent in driving the

vehicle and awarded the compensation as follows:

1.for loss of dependency - Rs.17,13,600/-

2.Loss of consortium to - Rs.40,000/-

to the first Petitioner

3.Loss of Estate -Rs.15,000/-

4.for funeral expenses -Rs.15,000/-

---------------------

total -Rs.17,83,000/-

----------------------

A crime was also registered against the driver of the first

respondent vehicle. The evidence of record woud show that the

driver of the first respondent vehicle was rash and negligent in