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

2023 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 91801

MADRAS HIGH COURT
The Branch Manager – Appellant
Versus
Govindan – Respondent
CMA 1128 2022



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 01.08.2023

Coram

The Honourable Mr.Justice SUNDER MOHAN

C.M.A.Nos.1128, 1461 & 1622 of 2022

and C.M.P.Nos.8288, 13525, 10799 & 12056 of 2022

C.M.A.No.1128 of 2022:

The Branch Manager,

M/s.Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Puducherry.

...Appellant

Versus

1.Govindan

2.Santhi

3.Poongothai

4.Thamizhselvi

5.Mr.Siva Mahesh

...Respondents

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree dated

29.11.2021 passed in M.C.O.P.No.575 of 2018 by the Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal, IInd Additional District Court, Puducherry.

For Appellant

:

Mrs.C.Bhuvanasundari

For Respondents – 1 to 4

:

Mr.R.Sreedhar

For Respondent – 5

:

No Appearance

1/21

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

C.M.A.No.1461 of 2022:

The Branch Manager,

M/s.Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Puducherry.

...Appellant

Versus

1.Mrs.Jahuran Bibi

2.Minor Raju Khan

Rep. by his mother Mrs.Jahuran Bibi

3.Mr.Siva Mahesh

...Respondents

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree dated

29.11.2021 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1004 of 2018 by the Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal, IInd Additional District Court, Puducherry.

For Appellant

:

Mrs.C.Bhuvanasundari

For Respondents – 1 & 2

:

Mr.V.Iyyappan

For Respondent – 3

:

No Appearance

C.M.A.No.1622 of 2022:

The Branch Manager,

M/s.Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Puducherry.

...Appellant

Versus

1.Mr.Safir Khan

2.Mrs.Ashama Bibi

3.Ms.Asmina Bibi

2/21

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

4.Mr.Saifudin Khan

5.Mr.Siva Mahesh

...Respondents

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree dated

29.11.2021 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1002 of 2018 by the Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal, IInd Additional District Court, Puducherry.

For Appellant

:

Mrs.C.Bhuvanasundari

For Respondents – 1 to 4

:

Mr.V.Iyyappan

For Respondent – 5

:

No Appearance

COMMON JUDGMENT

All these appeals arise out of a same accident and hence, the same are

disposed of by this common judgment.

2. These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been preferred by the

appellant/Insurance Company seeking to set aside the judgment and decree

dated 29.11.2021 passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal, Puducherry in M.C.O.P.Nos.575, 1004 & 1002

of 2018 respectively.

3/21

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

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of these appeals are as follows:

On 13.05.2018, at about 2.45 a.m., while one Manikandan was riding

a Suzuki motorcycle bearing Registration No.PY 05 W 3960 along with two

pillion riders viz., Ramjan Ali & Azaruddin Khan on Pondy – Villupuram

Main Road, near Appasamy Company, Vadamangalam, Puducherry from

west to east direction, a TATA Multi Axle Goods vehicle bearing

Registration No.TN 20 BJ 6939 driven by its driver coming on the same

road from east to west direction, hit the said motorcycle, as a result of

which, the said Manikandan and two pillion riders were thrown away from

the motorcycle and fell down on the road. In the accident, the said

Manikandan and the two pillion riders who travelled along with him had

sustained severe injuries. One of the pillion riders viz., Azaruddin Khan

died on the spot. Immediately after the accident, the said Manikandan and

another pillion rider viz., Ramzan Ali were taken to JIPMER Hospital,

Puducherry for treatment. However, the another pillion rider viz., Ramzan

Ali died on the way to Hospital. Thereafter, on the very same day of

accident, the said Manikandan died at 4.52 a.m. Hence, the claimants filed

claim petitions claiming compensation.

4/21

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

4. The appellant/Insurance Company had filed its separate counter

statement denying all the averments made by the claimants

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