C.M.A.No.769 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON : 29.08.2023

PRONOUNCED ON : 01.09.2023

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

C.M.A.No.769 of 2022

and

C.M.P.No.5598 of 2022

Magma HDI General Insurance Co.Ltd

Rep by its Manager

Magma House, 24 Park Street,

Kolkata – 700 016.

..Appellant/2^nd Respondent

Vs.

1.S.Ramesh

2.R.Jayapal

...Respondents

Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award and decretal order dated 06.12.2019

made in M.C.O.P.No.163 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Special Subordinate Judge, Tirupattur.

_____

1/19

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

C.M.A.No.769 of 2022

For Appellant

: Mr.N.Somasundaar

For Respondents : Mrs.A.Subadra and

Mrs.M.Malar for R1

No appearance for R2

J U D G M E N T

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the

appellant/Insurance Company challenging the quantum of compensation

granted by the Tribunal in the award dated 16.12.2019 made in M.C.O.P.

No.163 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special

Subordinate Judge, Tirupattur.

2. The appellant/Insurance Company is the second respondent in

M.C.O.P. No.163 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Special Subordinate Judge, Tirupattur. The first respondent/petitioner filed

the said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- as compensation for

the injuries suffered by him in the accident that took place on 02.02.2017.

_____

2/19

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

C.M.A.No.769 of 2022

3. According to first respondent/claimant, on 02.02.2017 at about 20:45

hours, while he was proceeding towards Jolarpettai near Sacred Heart College

in his motorcycle bearing Reg.No.TN 23 BW 2522, a lorry bearing

Reg.No.TN 52 C 4448 which was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent

manner, dashed against him. In that accident, he sustained grievous injuries

and admitted in the Hospital. Hence, the first respondent filed a claim petition

claiming compensation against the appellant and second respondent.

4. The second respondent/owner of the lorry remained exparte before

the Tribunal.

5. The appellant filed a counter statement denying all the averments

made in the claim petition and stated that the accident took place due to the

rash and negligent driving by the rider of the two wheeler i.e., first

respondent; and that the first respondent did not have valid driving license at

_____

3/19

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

C.M.A.No.769 of 2022

the time of the accident. They also denied that the first respondent was

admitted as an inpatient in the Hospital from 03.02.2014 to 07.03.2014 and

stated that in any event the compensation claimed by the first respondent is

highly excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

6. Before the Tribunal, the 1^st respondent examined three witnesses as

P.W.1 to P.W.3 and marked eighteen documents as Exs.P1 to P18. The

appellant neither marked any document nor examined any witness on their

side.

7. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence,

held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver

of the lorry belonging to the 2^nd respondent and directed the

appellant/Insurance Company being the insurer of the said lorry to pay a sum

of Rs.19,27,598/- as compensation to the first respondent/claimant.

8. Against the said award dated 16.12.2014 made in M.C.O.P.No.163 of

2014, granting compensation to the first respondent, the appellant/Insurance

_____

4/19

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

C.M.A.No.769 of 2022

Company has filed the present appeal challenging the quantum of

compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the

award of the Tribunal granting compensation by adopting multiplier method

is erroneous; that