Madras High Court
United India Insurance Co.Ltd vs Ganesan on 27 September, 2019
Author: R.Mahadevan
Bench: R.Mahadevan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUE AT MADRAS
DATED 27.09.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN
C.M.A. No.3574 of 2019
and C.M.P.No.20739 of 2019
United India Insurance Co.Ltd
Branch office
MM.Reddy Complex
Old Bangalore Road
Hosur .. Appellant
versus
1. Ganesan
2. S.Kannammal ..
Respondents
Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, praying
against the Judgment and decree dated 06.07.2012 made in
M.C.O.P.No.893/2008 on the file of the MACT (CJM) at Dharmapuri.
For Appellant : Mr.T.Ravichandran
JUDGMENT
The Insurer has filed this appeal challenging the award passed by the Tribunal in MCOP.No.893 of 2008 dated 06.07.2012.
2. On 05.08.2007 at about 1.30 pm when the claimant was traveling as one among the passengers in a share auto bearing Registration No.TN-29-E- http://www.judis.nic.in 6961, the auto got capsized, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of 2 the share auto. On account of the same, the claimant sustained fractures on his left shoulder, left hip and right knee and also bruises on the left feet. Stating so, he filed a claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as total compensation.
3. The Tribunal, after contest, has awarded a sum of Rs.2,85,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition as total compensation payable by the Insurer, by placing reliance upon the judgment reported in 2011 ACJ 917 (United India Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. K.M.Poonam and others) and upon the policy of insurance. Aggrieved over which, the insurer has filed this appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. This appeal is taken up at the admission stage itself, for final disposal, since the disposal of this case will not affect the rights of the respondents in any manner.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company/Insurer has submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in over looking the documentary evidence adduced by the claimant in proving the manner of accident; that the claimant has taken treatment only for 11 days, but the Doctor has assessed the disability at 55% and hence, adopting the multiplier method is unsustainable; and in any event, the award passed by the Tribunal is on the higher side which needs substantial reduction.
6. An analysis of the award of the Tribunal will go to show that the http://www.judis.nic.in claimant has examined himself as P.W.1 before the Tribunal. To controvert the 3 evidence of P.W.1, neither any additional document nor any independent witness was examined to show that the accident had not happened as alleged by P.W.1.
7. The driving licence, the policy as well as the manner of accident were detailed before the Tribunal through oral and documentary evidence supporting the case of the claimant. In the absence of any contra evidence on record, the Tribunal has held that the accident has occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the share auto and accordingly, fastened the liability on the Insurer / appellant.
8. This Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal has analysed each and every aspect into consideration and has taken note of the oral and documentary evidence and settled principles of law and accordingly, fastened the liability on the respondent / Insurance Company which does not require any interference by this Court.
9. Hence, findings on the negligence rendered by the Tribunal stand confirmed.
10. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, it is not in dispute that the claimant has suffered the following injuries:
“1.Tenderness and deformity left collar bone fracture left clavicle.
2. Abrasion over the left lumbar region 30 cm X 25 cm.
http://www.judis.nic.in
3.Abrasion over the left knee 2cm X 3cm.
4
4.Abrasion over the medial aspect of right heel 4cm X 5cm.”
11. Exs.P2 and P3 have been filed to prove the above injuries. There is also ample evidence by the Doctor that the claimant was suffering from tightening of muscles, muscle contraction, difficulty in standing, walking and sitting in cross legs and climbing the stairs and accordingly, the Doctor has assessed the disability at 55%. But the Tribunal has reduced the same to 45% disability and based on the decisions reported in 2011 (1) TN MAC 537 (SC) (Rudra vs. National Insurance Co.Ltd., & Anr.); 2011 (2) TN MAC 67 (SC) (Sant Singh vs. Sukhdev Singh and others); 2005 (3) CTC 36 (National Insurance Co. Ltd vs. S.Vijayakumar and another); 2011 (2) TN MAC 67 (SC) (Sant Singh vs. Sukhdevsingh and others); 2011 ACJ 917 (United India Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. K.M.Poonam and others) has arrived at the total compensation of Rs.2,85,000/-.
12. This Court is of the view that the Tribunal has taken each and every aspect into consideration and has awarded the compensation under Loss of Dependency at Rs.2,44,800/-, Medical Expenses at Rs.4,200/- (Ex.P6), Pain and Sufferings at Rs.22,500/- Nutrition and Transport Expenses at Rs.10,000/- and Cost of Attendants at Rs.3,500/-. The Tribunal has relied upon the exhibits, evidence of witnesses, medical bills, treatment records, percentage of disability assessed by the Doctor and all other aspects in a proper perspective and has awarded the above amounts under various heads to the claimant. Further, this Court is of the considered view that the amounts awarded towards thee heads http://www.judis.nic.in are reasonable and justifiable and hence the same are confirmed. 5
13. Also, the Tribunal has rightly placed reliance on the judgment reported in 2011 ACJ 917 (United India Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. K.M.Poonam and others) and also based on the policy of insurance has observed that six persons are eligible to get compensation from the appellant herein. Since the claimant is one among the six persons to claim the compensation, the Tribunal has ordered the Insurer to pay the compensation which in the considered view of this Court is justified.
14. In such view of the matter, the award of the Tribunal is confirmed. The appeal filed by the Insurance company stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
15. The appellant / Insurance Company shall deposit the entire compensation amount, along with interests and costs, as awarded by the Claims Tribunal, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of four weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit being made, the Tribunal is directed to transfer the deposited amount to the Savings Bank Account of the claimant / injured / first respondent herein, forthwith, through RTGS.
27.09.2019
Index : Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
Speaking order: Non-speaking order
srk
http://www.judis.nic.in
6
R.MAHADEVAN,J.
srk
To
1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (CJM), Dharmapuri. C.M.A. No.3574 of 2019 and C.M.P.No.20739 of 2019
27.09.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in