Madras High Court
M/S. New India Assurance Company ... vs Ganesan on 4 September, 2018
Author: V.M. Velumani
Bench: V.M. Velumani
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 04.09.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M. VELUMANI
CMA(MD).No. 499 of 2011 and
M.P(MD).No.1 of 2011
M/s. New India Assurance Company Limited,
S.N.High Road,
Thirunelveli. : Appellant / 2nd respondent
Vs.
1.Ganesan
2.Maniraj : Respondents
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Award and Decree dated 17.06.2010 made in
MCOP.No.114 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal /
Additional Subordinate Judge, Thenkasi.
For Appellant : Mr. B. Vijay Karthikeyan
^For R1 : Mr. R.J. Karthick
:JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the Award, dated 17.06.2010, made in MCOP.No.114 of 2006, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / Additional Subordinate Judge, Thenkasi.
2. The appellant / Insurance Company is the 2nd respondent in MCOP.No.114 of 2006, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / Additional Subordinate Judge, Thenkasi. The first respondent filed the said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that occurred on 30.11.2005.
3. According to the first respondent, while he was travelling in the motorcycle bearing Regn.No.TN 37 S 8634 driven by the second respondent as a pillion, the second respondent drove the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the milestone and that the first respondent was thrown out and suffered injuries. He underwent treatment in the Government Hospital, Thirunelveli and subsequently, in private hospital Thirunelveli and Nagercoil. The Police did not register the complaint given by the first respondent. The first respondent send the complaint to the Superintendent of Police. In view of such complaint, the police developed enmity and did not investigate the case properly.
4. The second respondent remained ex parte before the Tribunal.
5. The appellant resisted the claim of the first respondent contending that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of Auto, which was dashed against motor cycle driven by the second respondent. The accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Auto and not due to the rash and negligent driving by the second respondent. The second respondent has lodged a complaint against the driver of the Auto Ricksaw only. In any event, the amount claimed is excessive.
6. The Tribunal considering the pleadings oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties, held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by both the drivers of Auto as well as second respondent and held that the first respondent is entitled to only 50% of the compensation. Further, the Tribunal considering the nature of injuries and treatment taken by the first respondent, has arrived at a compensation of Rs.3,09,000/- and awarded Rs.1,54,500/- i.e., 50% of the same to the first respondent.
7. Challenging the said Award, the appellant has come out with the present appeal.
8. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and first respondent.
9. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the Tribunal without properly appreciating the evidence let in by the parties, especially Ex.P1 - First Information Report, erroneously held that the second respondent also contributed negligence and the compensation awarded under different heads, are excessive and untenable. The Tribunal has considered all the materials on record in proper perspective and held that the first respondent could have avoided the accident had he stopped the motorcycle instead of proceeding further. The Tribunal has given valid reason and held that the second respondent also responsible for accident. From the award of the Tribunal, it is seen that the compensation awarded is just and proper and it is not excessive. The Tribunal has awarded only 50% of the compensation arrived at, as the second respondent also contributed to the accident by his negligence. There is no error in the said order warranting interference by this Court.
10. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed, by confirming the Award and Decree dated 17.06.2010 made in MCOP.No.114 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / Additional Subordinate Judge, Thenkasi. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
To
1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / Additional Subordinate Judge, Thenkasi.
2. The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
.