Madras High Court
The United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Sakthivel on 6 January, 2025
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 06.01.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
C.M.A.No.1757 of 2020 & 1069, 1070 of 2021
The United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Salem Main Road, Branch Office,
Kallakurichi. ... Appellant in CMA. No.1757 of 2020
The Oriental Insurance company Ltd.,
Branch Office, Gandhi Road,
Kallakurichi.
... Appellants in CMA.Nos.1069 & 1070 of 2021
Vs
1. Sakthivel
2. Muthulakshmi
3. Anbazhagan
4. Suresh Kumar
5. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Gandhi Road, Kallakurichi.
... Respondents in CMA. No.1757 of 2020
1. Anbhazhagan
2. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Salem Main Road, Branch Office,
Kallakurichi.
3. Suresh Kumar
... Respondents in CMA.No.1069 of 2021
1. Ashok
2. Anbazhagan
3. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Salem Main Road, Branch Office,
Kallakurichi.
4. Suresh Kumar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 01:07:16 pm )
2
... Respondents in CMA.No.1070 of 2021
Common Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 173 of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and decree dated
10.07.2018 and 18.06.2018 respectively in MCOP Nos.258, 259 and 95
of 2017 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/III Additional
District Judge, Kallakurichi.
CMA. No.1757 of 2020:
For appellant : Mr.Krishnamoorthy.M.
For respondent : Mr.Amar Dinesh Bhai R1
Mr.K.Vinod R5
RR3 & 4 – No appearance
CMA.No.1069 & 1070 of 2020:
For Appellant : Mr.K.Vinod
For Respondent : Mr.M.Krishnamoorthy.M.
RR1 & 3 – No appearance
COMMON JUDGMENT
The appeals have been filed by the Insurance company questioning the quantum of compensation in the Judgment and decree dated 10.07.2018 and 18.06.2018 respectively in MCOP Nos.95, 258 and 259 of 2017 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/III Additional District Judge, Kallakurichi.
2. Since the issue involved in the matters are one and the same, the same are disposed of by way of this common Judgment. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. It is the case of the claimants that on 27.02.2017, the claimants ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 01:07:16 pm ) 3 along with their relatives were travelling in a car bearing Reg. No.TN 31 AU 4375 from their village to Kallakurichi. The car was driving by one Ashok, who is one of the injured claimant. At that time, a lorry was driven by one Suresh Kumar bearing Reg. No.TN 46 C 6267 in a opposite direction dashed against the car resulting in the accident in which one Gopikrishnan died on the sport and others viz., Anbazhagan and Ashok sustained injuries, In such circumstances, the injured claimants and the dependants of one Gopikrishnan have filed separate claim petitions before the Tribunal claiming compensation.
4. In order to prove their claim, the injured claimants in MCOP. No.258 and 259 of 2017 have examined witnesses viz., P.W.1 and marked 8 documents viz., Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. On the side of the insurance company, no witness was examined and no document was adduced. In respect of MCOP. No.95 of 2017, the legal heirs of the deceased have examined two witnesses and marked 11 documents before the Tribunal. On the side of the respondents, no witness was examined and no documents was marked. After analyzing the evidences, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.8,75,000/-, Rs.1,63,500/- and Rs.1,32,500/- to the claimants as compensation for injuries payable by the Insurance Companies of the car and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis lorry.on: 28/03/2025 01:07:16 pm ) ( Uploaded 4
5. Questioning its liability, the appellants/insurance company has come forward with these appeals before this Court.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company in CMA. Nos.1069 and 1070 of 2021 submitted that the appellant is the insurer of the lorry and the Tribunal went wrong in holding that the accident had happened in rash and negligent driving of the lorry. Further, the Tribunal has awarded huge compensation to the claimants which is unsustainable one and directed the insurer of the lorry and car to compensate the claimants which is erroneous. Therefore, this Court may interfere with the award and set aside the same.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant in CMA. No.1757 of 2020 submitted that the appellant is the insurer of the car. The Tribunal erred in holding that the driver of the car owned by the third respondent and insured with the appellant was rash and negligent and was solely responsible for the accident. In the present case, the Tribunal erred in holding that the driver of the car was solely responsible for the accident whereas in the connected cases arising out of the same accident, the very same Tribunal had held that the drivers of the car and the lorry are https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 01:07:16 pm ) 5 equally responsible for the accident and therefore, the Tribunal has fixed each 50% liability on both the insurance companies. This Court may apply same ratio in this case also.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the Oriental Insurance Company submitted that PW2 in his evidence has clearly deposed that the owner of the car was driving the car in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the lorry. Hence, the owner of the car is solely responsible for the accident. Hence, this Court may dismiss the present appeal.
9. In response, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in CMA. No.1757 of 2020 submitted that Pw2 who is occupant of the car has deposed as against the owner of the car, but PW1, who are the injured claimants in the very same accident in the other cases, have clearly deposed that the due to rash negligent driving of the car as well as the lorry, the accident had happened. Though FIR has been registered as against the owner of the car, however, mere FIR is not a conclusive proof. Hence, this Court may independently decide the issue. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10. The learned( Uploaded counsel for 01:07:16 on: 28/03/2025 the claimants pm ) submitted that 6 admittedly, the dependents of the deceased and the claimants were travelling as occupant in the car which was owned by one Anbazhagan and the same was insured with the United India Insurance Company. At that time, one Suresh Kumar, who is the owner of the lorry and the same was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company, dashed against the car and thereby, accident had happened. The Tribunal has rightly analyzed the issued and passed award, which needs no interference.
11. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the respondents and also perused the materials available on record before this Court.
12. The factum of the accident is not disputed by the parties and the appeals have been filed on the ground of negligence and liability. One Anbazhagan is the owner of the car and insured with the United India Insurance company. One Suresh Kumar is the owner of the lorry, which was insured with the Oriental insurance company. The first respondent in CMA. Nos.1069 and 1070 of 2021 are the injured person and occupants of the car. On perusal of the award, it is found that the accident had occurred on 27.02.2017, the owner of the car was driving his car along with the deceased and( Uploaded https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis other on:
two claimants,
28/03/2025 01:07:16 pmin
) a rash and negligent
7
manner and dashed against the lorry. Admittedly, the FIR has been lodged as against Anbazhagan. In MCOP. No.258 of 2017, PW2, who is also an occupant of the car, has clearly deposed that due to rash and negligent driving of the car, the accident had happened. Contrary to the same, the injured claimants have examined as PW1 in MCOP Nos.258 and 259 of 2021 have stated that both the driver of the car as well as the lorry have driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against each other.
13. Admittedly, an FIR has been filed as against the driver and owner of the car. However, mere registration of FIR is not a conclusive proof to decide the case. Further, in order to disprove the case, there was no eye witness examined on the side of the insurance company. After considering the evidences and witnesses, the Tribunal has rightly fixed 50:50 negligence on the part of the driver of the car and the lorry and fastened the liability as against the insurer of the car and lorry in MCOP. No.258 and 259 of 2017. In such circumstances, the deceased has also been travelled as an occupant of the car and due to the accident, he sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. However, the Tribunal has taken a different view in the same accident, which warrants interference. This Court https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis is inclined ( Uploaded to fix on: 28/03/2025 thepmnegligence 01:07:16 ) on the part of 8 the both the drivers of the car and the lorry. Hence, the appellant and the 5th respondent, who is its insurer, is liable to pay compensation.
14. The award in MCOP. No.95 of 2017 dated 18.06.2018 fastened the liability by the Tribunal on the United India Insurance Company is alone set aside. This Court directs the appellant and 5th respondent in CMA. No.1757 of 2021 to pay each 50% of the award amount passed by the Tribunal in MCOP. No.95 of 2017. The compensation that has been fixed by the Tribunal in all the cases are reasonable and it does not require the interference of this Court.
15. In respect of CMA. Nos.1069 and 1070 of 2021, this Court do not find any error in the award passed by the Tribunal. There is no merit in the appeal.
16. In the result, CMA. Nos.1069 and 1070 of 2021 are dismissed. CMA. No.1757 of 2021 is allowed. The insurance companies are directed to deposit each 50% of the award amount awarded by the Tribunal along with interest at 7.5%, 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis made,
( Uploaded the 01:07:16
on: 28/03/2025 claimants
pm ) shall withdraw the
9
compensation as awarded by the Tribunal along with interest and costs, less the amount, if any, already withdrawn, by filing an appropriate application before the Court concerned. No costs.
06.01.2025 rli Index : Yes/no Internet : Yes/no To The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/III Additional District Judge, Kallakurichi.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 01:07:16 pm ) 10 M.DHANDAPANI.,J.
rli C.M.A.Nos.1069, 1070 & 1757 of 2017 06.01.2025 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 01:07:16 pm )