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

MADRAS HIGH COURT
MARAPPA – Appellant
Versus
RAMESH BABU – Respondent
CMA 776/2018



Advocates:
['M/S SP YUARAJ', '', 'K PREMNATH', 'M/S J CHANDRAN', '', 'FOR R']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated: 11.04.2018

Coram

The Honourable Mr. Justice S.BASKARAN

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.776 of 2018

1.Marappa

2.Puspha ... Petitioner/Appellants

..vs..

1.Ramesh Babu

2.Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,

Divisional Office, Divya Towers,

Sevapettai Main Road,

Salem – 636002.

3.R.Prakash

4.Oriental Insurance company Ltd.,

Vijay Shopping Complex,

No.2/7-16, Bangalore Main Road,

Jusuvadi, Hosur-635 109. ... Respondents/Respondents

Prayer:

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has filed under Section

173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Fair and Decreetal

order dated 04.08.2017 made in MCOP.No.570 of 2015 on the file

of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/III Additional District

Judge, Salem.

For Appellants : Mr.S.P.Yuaraj

For Respondents : Mr.J.Chandran, for 2

JUDGMENT

Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation

awarded by the Tribunal, dated 04.08.2017 made in MCOP.No.570

of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/III

Additional District Judge, Salem, the petitioners/claimants

have come forward with this present appeal seeking to

enhancement of the award amount.

2. With both parties consent, the matter is disposed of at

the admission stage itself.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be

hereinafter referred to in this judgment as arrayed before the

Tribunal.

4. The case of the petitioners is that on 02.09.2014 at

about 04.45 p.m., as the deceased Sanjai along with his friend

Dilip Nagaraj were travellling in a two wheeler bearing

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

Registration No.TN-70-M-1274, from Bangalore to his native place,

the rider of the two wheeler Dilip Nagaraj drove the vehicle at

high speed in a rash and negligent manner, who going in

Aravantigerepura lake to Karporu road, near the same lake,

attempted to over take another two wheeler bearing Registration

No.TN-29-Q-9853 and in the process, lost his control dashed

against the said Hero Honda bike and also the electrical post on

the left side of the road causing fatal injuries to the deceased

Sanjai who died on the spot itself. The accident occurred due to

the rash and negligent driving by the said Dilip Nagaraj only.

At the time of the accident, the deceased Sanjai, who is the son

of the petitioner was aged about 19 years and was studying

engineering course. The deceased is the only son of the

petitioners and they are suffering due to mental agony caused by

the death of young brilliant person. Hence, they seek a sum of

Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation from the respondents who are the

owner and insurer of the two vehicles involved in the accident.

5. On the other hand, opposing the claim petition, the

second and 4th respondents filed counter contending that the

accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving by the

rider of the two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-70-M-1274

owned by the first respondent and insured with the second

respondent herein. The other vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-

29-Q-9853 belongs to the third respondent and insured with the 4th

respondent. Admittedly, both the vehicles was insured with the

same Oriental Insurance Company Limited. The second and fourth

respondents Insurance Company contended that the rider of the

first and third respondent's motor cycle have to prove that they

possessed the valid and effective driving licence on the date of

accident. The second and fourth respondents further contended

that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent

driving by the rider of the first respondent vehicle and as such

the claim against the third and fourth respondents has to be

dismissed. The age, avocation and income of the deceased as

stated in the petition is disputed. The claim of the petit

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top