IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 30.03.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM

and

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM

C.M.A.Nos.424 and 2032 of 2021

and

C.M.P.No.10991 of 2021

C.M.A.No.424 of 2021

Lalitha

wife of Venkatesan

rep. by next friend

Sister Kavitha

wife of Sivakumar

No.160(2) Colony

Kilakku Theru

Velur,

Paramathy Velur Taluk,

Namakkal District.

... Appellant/Petitioner

Vs.

1. Venkatesan

2. The Manager,

New India Assurance Company Limited,

KVR Complex,

III Floor, 80 Feet Road,

Sengundapurm,

Karur – 639002.

Another Address

The Manager,

New India Assurance Company Limited,

Divisional Office No.29, Paramathy Road,

Namakkal.

... Respondents/Respondents

For Appellant

:

Mr.C.Thangaraju

For Respondents : Mrs.S.R.Sumathy for R2

R1

:

Not ready in notice

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

C.M.A.No.2032 of 2021

New India Assurance Company Limited,

T.P.(Suit) Claims HUB,

Divisional Office,

29, Paramathy Road,

Namakkal – 637 001.

... Appellant/2^nd Respondent

Vs.

1. Venkatesan

... 1^st Respondent/1^st Respondent

2. Lalitha W/o Venkatesan

rep. by next friend sister

Kavitha W/o Sivakumar

160(2) Colony,

Kilakku Theru, Velur,

Paramathy Veluk Taluk,

Namakkal District.

... 2^nd Respondent/Petitioner

COMMON PRAYER:

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of

Motor Vehicles Act 1988 to set aside the Judgment and Decree in

MCOP No.976 of 2018 dated 19.11.2020 on the file of Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal ( Sessions (Fast Track Mahila) Judge,

Namakkal.

For Appellant

:

Mr.S.R.Sumathy

For Respondents

:

Mr.Thangaraju for R2

COMMON JUDGMENT

(Common Judgment of the Court was made by K.KALYANASUNDARAM.,J)

C.M.A.No.424 of 2021 is filed by the claimant seeking

enhancement of compensation, whereas, the Insurance Company

questioning the award, has preferred C.M.A.No.2032 of 2021.

Since both the appeals arise out of the same order passed in the

MCOP dated 19.11.2020, both are heard together and disposed of

by this common Judgment.

2.For the purpose of clarity, the parties are referred to

as per their rank before the Tribunal.

3.The case of the claimant is that on 18.06.2018 at about

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

08.35 a.m, she travelled as pillion rider in a two wheeler

bearing Reg.No.TN-88-D-3620. The vehicle was driven by the first

respondent in a rash and negligent manner and he applied sudden

break and caused the accident. In the impact, the claimant

sustained injuries.

4.The claim petition was filed by the claimant represented

by her sister Kavitha. Before the Tribunal, Exs.P.30 to 38 were

produced to show that the claimant had spent Rs.23,93,391/-

towards medical expenses. The Tribunal in conclusion of the

Trial, has awarded compensation of Rs.40,43,500/- together with

interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.

5.The learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company

Mrs.S.R.Sumathy would argue that the claimant had produced bogus

medical bills before the Tribunal to claim a sum of

Rs.23,00,000/-. According to her, the medical bills were bogus

and prepared to claim higher compensation in this case. It is

next submitted that the first respondent is the husband of the

claimant, but the claimant was represented by her sister to

claim compensation.

6.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the

claimant Mr.C.Thangaraju would argue that all the medical bills

are genuine and they have been produced before the Tribunal in

the presence of the learned counsel representing for the

Insurance Company, but no cross examination on this aspect was

made before the Tribunal.

7.In reply, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance

Company would submit that the Insurance Company was not provided

adequate opportunity to verify the medical bills and hence, in

the interest of justice, the matter may be