C.M.A(MD)No.1228 of 2015

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 27.04.2023

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

C.M.A(MD)No.1228 of 2015

The Branch Manager,

United India Insurance Company Ltd.,

74 A, Salai Road,

Thiruchirapalli-620 018.

... Appellant/4^th Respondent

Vs.

1.T.Balakrishnan

... Respondent/Claimant

2.P.Radhakrishnan

3.The Branch Manager,

New India Assurance Company Ltd.,

East Coast Chambers,

First Floor, G.N.Chetty Road,

T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017.

4.G.K.Venkatesh

... Respondent/Respondents 1-3

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of

Motor Vehicles Act, to set aside the award passed by the learned Special

Subordinate Judge, Thiruchirapalli / Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in

M.C.O.P.No.1224 of 2013, dated 24.09.2014.

For Appellant

: Mr.N.Dilip Kumar

1/13

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

C.M.A(MD)No.1228 of 2015

For R1

: Mr.N.Sudhagar Nagaraj

For R2

: No Appearance

For R3

: Mr.S.Sarvagan Prabhu

For R4

: Mr.M.Selvakumar

JUDGEMENT

The present appeal has been filed by the insurance company

challenging an award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Thiruchirappalli in M.C.O.P.No.1224 of 2013.

2. The injured claimant has filed a claim petition contending that

he was a load man in the 1^st respondent's auto. The lorry owned by the 3^rd

respondent which came in the opposite direction, dashed against the auto

and this has resulted in throwing away the claimant. He sustained

multiple grievous injuries all over his body. As per the claim petition, the

monthly income of the injured claimant was mentioned as Rs.4,000/-.

The claimant sought for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation.

3. The owner of the auto and the owner of the lorry had remained

ex parte. The insurance company of the auto, namely the 2^nd respondent

had filed a counter questioning the quantum of compensation as prayed

2/13

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

C.M.A(MD)No.1228 of 2015

for by the claimant. The insurance company of the lorry, namely 4^th

respondent had filed a counter contending that the accident has

happened only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the

auto. Hence, they are not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant.

They have also questioned the quantum of compensation as prayed for by

the claimant.

4. The tribunal after considering the oral and documentary

evidence, arrived at a finding that the accident has happened only due to

the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 3^rd respondent and

fixed the liability upon the insurance company of the lorry. Considering

the fact that the petitioner had sustained 38% disability, the tribunal had

fixed Rs.3,000/- per each percentage and awarded a sum of Rs.1,14,000/-

for partial permanent disability. The tribubal further awarded a sum of

Rs.20,000/- towards pain and sufferings, a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards

transportation charges and extra nourishment, a sum of Rs.2,000/-

towards medical assistance, a sum of Rs.41,305/- towards medical bills

and a sum of Rs.13,500/- towards loss of income during treatment

period. Ultimately, the tribunal arrived at a final compensation amount of

Rs.2,00,805/-. This award is under challenge by the insurance company

of the lorry.

3/13

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

C.M.A(MD)No.1228 of 2015

5. According to the learned counsel appearing for the insurance

company, the present claim petition has been filed under Section 163-A

of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred as MV Act). When an

application is filed under the said provision, the annual income of the

deceased or injured person should not exceed Rs.40,000/- per annum. In

case, if the annual income exceeds Rs.40,000/-, the petition under

Section 163-A of MV Act is not maintainable. The claimants have to

resort to a claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act. In the