w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Cuddalore v/s Purushothaman (died) & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED [Active] CIN = U93090TN1938GOI000108

Company & Directors' Information:- J B UNITED PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U93000MH2014PTC258844

Company & Directors' Information:- J B UNITED PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999MH2014PTC258844

Company & Directors' Information:- UNITED CORPORATION LIMITED [Liquidated] CIN = U99999TN1942PLC003159

    C.M.A. No. 282 of 2020 & C.M.P. No. 1941 of 2020

    Decided On, 31 January 2020

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE V.M. VELUMANI

    For the Appellant: D. Bhaskaran, Advocate. For the Respondents: -----



Judgment Text


(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award and Decree dated 30.09.2013 made in M.C.O.P.No.1851 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, I Additional District Court, Cuddalore.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the award dated 30.09.2013 made in M.C.O.P.No.1851 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, I Additional District Court, Cuddalore.

2. The appellant is the second respondent in M.C.O.P.No.1851 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, I Additional District Court, Cuddalore. One Purushothaman, the first claimant filed the said claim petition claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that took place on 16.02.2003, against the 5th respondent and appellant/Insurance Company, being the owner and insurer of the motorcycle.

3 .According to 1st claimant, said Purushothaman, on 16.02.2003 at about 09.50 A.M., while he was riding in his motorcycle bearing Registration No.TAZ 0915 on Sirupakkam – Salem Main Road near Paddaimaatri Valaivu, the rider of the motorcycle bearing Registration No. TN 32 W 7371 belonging to 5th respondent came in a rash and negligent manner from the opposite direction without blowing horn, hit against the deceased and caused the accident. Due to the said accident, the said Purushothaman, the 1st claimant sustained grievous injuries all over the body and immediately he was taken to Government Hospital, Vriddhachalam and then subsequently taken to Government Head Quarters Hospital, Cuddalore and later he was taken to Aravind Eye Hospital at Madurai. He filed claim petition claiming compensation for the injuries. Pending claim petition, the said Purushothaman died on 29.04.2004. Therefore, the respondents 1 to 4, who are the legal heirs of the deceased Purushothaman were impleaded as legal heirs of the deceased Purushothaman as per the order dated 12.04.2005 made in I.A.No.1382 of 2005 and amended the claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- for the death of the said Purushothaman by the order dated 23.11.2005 made in I.A.No.2460 of 2005.

4. The 5th respondent / owner of the motorcycle remained exparte before the Tribunal.

5. The appellant/Insurance Company filed counter statement and denied all the averments made by the respondents 1 to 4/claimants. According to appellant/Insurance Company, the rider of the motorcycle bearing Registration No. TN 32 W 7371 was not having valid driving license at the time of accident and the owner of the said motorcycle has not insured the said motorcycle with the appellant. The rider of the motorcycle belonging to the 5th respondent drove the same at a moderate speed observing all the traffic rules, the deceased only drove his motorcycle bearing Registration No.TAZ 0915 at a high speed and dashed against the 5th respondent's motorcycle and invited the accident. The accident occurred only due to negligent act of the deceased. Therefore, the appellant/Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation to the first claimant. The deceased was not having valid driving license at the time of accident. The appellant/Insurance Company denied that the deceased was aged 40 years and was working as Police Head Constable and was earning a sum of Rs.7,000/- per month. In any event, the quantum of compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- claimed by the claimants is highly excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

6. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4/claimants, the first respondent examined herself as P.W.1 and one K.Sivakumar, eyewitness as P.W.2 and eleven documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P11. The 5th respondent and appellant/Insurance Company did not let in any oral or documentary evidence.

7. The Tribunal, considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence let in by respondents 1 to 4, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding by the rider of the motorcycle belonging to the 5th respondent and directed the appellant-Insurance Company, being the insurer of the motorcycle to pay a sum of Rs.7,98,000/- as compensation to the respondents 1 to 4/claimants 2 to 5.

8. Challenging the said award dated 30.09.2013 made in M.C.O.P.No.1851 of 2003, the appellant-Insurance Company has come out with the present appeal.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal failed to note that respondents 1 to 4/claimants 2 to 5 did not prove that the said Purushothaman, the 1st claimant died due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident. The respondents 1 to 4 did not examine any Doctor or produced any medical records to prove the proximity of the injury sustained in the accident and death pending claim petition. The Tribunal failed to see tht the 1st claimant after taking initial treatment after the accident did not take any continuous treatment and respondents 1 to 4 have not produced any document to prove that 1st claimant was taking continuous treatment. No postmortem was conducted and no proof was filed for cause of death. The Tribunal failed to note that respondents 1 to 4 are entitled to only compensation for loss of estate. The amount of Rs.7,98,000/- awarded by the Tribunal as compensation to the respondents 1 to 4 is excessive and prayed for allowing of the appeal and dismissal of the claim petition.

10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company and perused the entire materials on record.

11. It is the contention of the respondents 1 to 4 that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding by the driver of the motorcycle belonging to the 5th respondent and marked Ex.P1/F.I.R., which was registered against the rider of the motorcycle. The 1st respondent, wife of the deceased examined herself as P.W.1 and examined P.W.2/eyewitness to prove their contention. Ex.P4/copy of Accident Register proves that the deceased sustained one grievous injury and four simple injuries. He took treatment for the injuries and filed claim petition claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him. Pending claim petition, the 1st claimant died. The respondents 1 to 4 got themselves impleaded as claimants 2 to 5 contending that due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the 1st claimant died inspite of treatment. The respondents 1 to 4 claimed a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- for loss of income, loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, transportation expenses and funeral expenses by filing I.A.No.2460 of 2005 to amend the claim petition and the said I.A.No.2460 of 2005 was ordered on 23.11.2005. After amendment, the appellant-Insurance Company has not filed any counter statement denying the contention of respondents 1 to 4 that 1st claimant died due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent examined herself as P.W.1 and deposed about the nature of accident and reason for the death of the 1st claimant. The appellant-Insurance Company has not let in any oral and documentary evidence.

12. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documents let in by the respondents 1 to 4 and that there is no contra evidence on the side of the appellant-Insurance Company, held that respondents 1 to 4 are entitled to compensation for loss of income and awarded a sum of Rs.7,98,000/- as compensation to the respondents 1 to 4. There is no error in the reasoning of the Tribunal warranting interference by this Court.

13. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and sum of Rs.7,98,000/- awarded by the Tribunal as compensation to the respondents 1 to 4/claimants, along with interest and costs is confirmed. The appellant- Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award amount along with interest and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of six weeks fro

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

m the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.1851 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, I Additional District Court, Cuddalore. On such deposit, the respondents 1 and 4 are permitted to withdraw their respective share of the award amount, along with proportionate interest and costs, after adjusting the amount, if any already withdrawn, by filing necessary applications before the Tribunal. The share of the minor respondents 2 and 3 is directed to be deposited in any one of the Nationalized Bank, till the minor respondents 2 and 3 attains majority. On such deposit, the 1st respondent, being the mother of the minor respondents 2 and 3 is permitted to withdraw the accrued interest, once in three months, for the welfare of the minor respondents 2 and 3. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
O R