Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: cma in Mrs. Balamanohari vs M/S. Sri Venkateswara College Of ... on 27 April, 2018Matching Fragments
R. Subbiah, J All these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals arise out of the Judgment and Decree dated 20.03.2013 passed in MCOP No. 336 of 2007 on the file of Chief Small Causes Judge/Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chennai. By the said decree and Judgment dated 20.03.2013, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.17,10,000/- as compensation payable to the claimants 1 and 2 with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum payable by the respondents 1 and 3 in the Claim Petition.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to these appeals shall be referred to as per their litigative status as 'claimants' and 'respondents' in MCOP No. 336 of 2007 and as arrayed in CMA. No. 3130 of 2013 filed by the claimants.
9. Feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants, who are parents of the deceased, have filed CMA No. 3130 of 2013 seeking enhancement of the compensation.
10. As against the very same award passed by the Tribunal, C.M.A. No. 630 of 2014 is filed by the Insurance Company contending that they have taken a defence before the Tribunal specifically contending that on the date of accident, the vehicle was running without a valid permit. In such circumstances, according to the Insurance Company, the Tribunal ought not to have directed them to pay the compensation to the claimants and to thereafter recover it from the first respondent Venkateswara College of Engineering. Instead, the Tribunal ought to have directed the first respondent/owner of the vehicle - Sri Venkateswara Engineering College to pay the compensation amount to the claimant. Therefore, it is the specific contention of the Insurance Company in CMA No. 630 of 2014 that the Tribunal erred in directing them to pay the compensation to the claimants and thereafter recover it from the owner of the vehicle and prayed for setting aside the direction issued by the Tribunal to pay the compensation amount.
11. Assailing the very same Judgment and Decree passed by the Tribunal, the first respondent in the claim petition namely Sri Venkateswara College of Engineering has filed CMA No. 1018 of 2014 contending that the Tribunal erred in directing the insurance company to pay the compensation with a right to recover the compensation from them. It is the vehement contention of the first respondent that even prior to the accident, the ownership of the vehicle in question was transferred by them in favour of one Annamalai, Son of Subbiah, but the Tribunal, without appreciating such defence made on behalf of the first respondent erred in directing the Insurance Company to pay the compensation to the claimants and to recover it from them. Thus, the counsel for the first respondent prayed to set aside the Judgment of the Tribunal in so far as it relates to the recovery right given to the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount to the claimants and thereafter to recover it from the owner of the vehicle.
(ii) Consequently, CMA No. 630 of 2014 filed by the Insurance Company against the Judgment and Decree dated 20.03.2013 passed in MCOP No. 336 of 2007 on the file of Chief Small Causes Judge/Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chennai is dismissed confirming the recovery right given by the Tribunal against the first respondent Sri Venkateswara College of Engineering.
(iii) CMA No. 1018 of 2014 filed by the first respondent is dismissed confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 20.03.2013 passed in MCOP No. 336 of 2007 on the file of Chief Small Causes Judge/Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chennai with an observation that in the event of recovery of the compensation amount by the insurance company from the first respondent, it is open to the first respondent to recover such amount from the second respondent Vel Tech Engineering College, in the very same Execution Proceedings.