United India Insurance Company Limited vs P.Ravikumar .. 1St on 25 November, 2016

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

United India Insurance Company Limited vs P.Ravikumar .. 1St on 25 November, 2016

Bench: S.M.Subramaniam

        

 

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT               

DATED: 25.11.2016  

Coram 

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM              

C.M.A.(MD)No.1086 of 2006 AND   
M.P.(MD)NO.1 of 2006  

United India Insurance Company Limited, 
Branch Office, 12-A, Kovai Road,
P.L.A. Building, II Floor,
Karur.                                     .. Appellant/Second respondent

-Vs-

1. P.Ravikumar                             .. 1st Respondent/Claimant
2. Ramalingam                                      .. 2nd Respondent/1st Respondent 

Prayer:-        Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Order passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karur, dated
07.02.2006, in M.C.O.P.No.57 of 2005. 

!For Appellant  : M/s.T.Jeyanthi
^For R-1                : Mr.C.Sivaraja
                                               for Mr.Karthikeya Venkatachalapathy
        

:JUDGMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises out of the Order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karur, in M.C.O.P.No.57 of 2005, dated 07.02.2006.

2. It is a case of injury occurred in an accident took place on 13.01.2005 at about 9.30 p.m., at Velayuthampalayam ? TNPL Road, Near Puthu Kovil. The injured filed an application before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karur, seeking compensation of a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-.

3. The Tribunal considering the facts and circumstances of the case awarded Rs.1,84,980/- as total compensation. Being not satisfied with the award passed by the Tribunal, the appellant Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal on the ground that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. In view of the fact that the income of the injured was taken excessively, the quantum of compensation has to be reconsidered and revised.

4. The learned counsel for the first respondent opposed the contentions of the appellant by stating that the injured claimant was aged 26 years at the time of the accident, he was owned a shop, namely, United Paper Mart and, he was a self-employee. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly fixed the monthly income of Rs.2,500/- and this Court is of the view that the same cannot be termed as excessive.

5. Considering the nature of the job of the respondent/claimant, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the Order passed by the Tribunal and accordingly, the Order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karur, in M.C.O.P.No.57 of 2005, dated 07.02.2006, is confirmed and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company represented that the entire award amount has already been deposited. Therefore, the respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw entire award amount along with proportionate interest and costs, through RTGS, by filing necessary application before the Tribunal. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.

1. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karur.

2. The Record Keeper, V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. .

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madras High Court