Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 3413 (MAD)

National Insurance Company Limited v. Chandradevi

2018-10-01

V.M.VELUMANI

body2018
JUDGMENT 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed to set aside the award dated 22.09.2003, made in M.C.O.P. No. 1486 of 2000, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Third Additional Subordinate Judge at Madurai. 2. The appellant is the second respondent in M.C.O.P. No. 1486 of 2000. The respondents 1 to 5 filed the said claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Only) as compensation for the death of one Alagu Murugan, who is the husband of the first respondent, father of the respondents 2 and 3 and son of the respondents 4 and 5, in the accident that occurred on 29.05.1997. The 6th respondent is the owner of the auto, insured with the appellant/Insurance Company. 3. According to the respondents 1 to 5, on 29.05.1997, while the said Alagu Murugan was riding in a motorcycle bearing Registration No. TN 49 A 7921 along with one Mohan as pillion, an auto bearing Registration No. TN 59 F 4510, belonging to the 6th respondent herein came in the opposite direction driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motorcycle driven by the said Alagu Murugan. Due to the same, he sustained injuries and died in spite of treatment. At the time of accident, he was aged about 28 years and he was doing business in the name and style of Amutha Book Binding and was earning a sum of Rs. 7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Only) per month. The respondents 1 to 5 are the legal heirs and dependents of the deceased Alagu Murugan. The 6th respondent is the owner of the Auto and the appellant is the insurer of the Auto. Hence, both the 6th respondent and the appellant are liable to pay compensation. 4. The 6th respondent/owner of the vehicle remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. 5. The appellant resisted the claim by filing counter statement and denied all the averments and contended that the auto was not involved in the accident and the injuries on the deceased are self inflicted injuries. The appellant is not liable to pay any compensation. The First Information Report lodged against the driver of the auto was closed, as the driver of the auto died and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 6. The appellant is not liable to pay any compensation. The First Information Report lodged against the driver of the auto was closed, as the driver of the auto died and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 6. Before the Tribunal, the first respondent herein examined herself as PW-1, One Muthu, Bharthasarathi and Paradeshi were examined as PW-2 to PW-4 and marked twenty one documents as Exs.P1 to P21. On the side of the appellant, one Sankaranarayanan was examined as RW-1 and marked one document as Ex.R.1. Ex.C.1 to Ex.C.3 were also marked as Court documents. 7. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, both oral and documentary evidence let in by both the parties, held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the auto, belonging to the 6th respondent and directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 5,62,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Sixty Two Thousand Only) as compensation to the respondents 1 to 5. 8. Aggrieved by the said award of the Tribunal, the appellant/Insurance Company has come out with the present appeal. 9. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the auto. The case registered against the driver of the auto was closed. The Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the documents marked as Ex.C1 and C2 and the compensation amount awarded is excessive. 10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the materials on record. 11. The contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant are that the accident is not due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Auto, the First Information Report registered against the driver of the auto was closed and the Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the Court documents Exs.C.1 and C2 and compensation awarded is excessive. These contentions are without merits. The First Information Report registered against the driver of the Auto was closed on the ground that the driver of the auto was died. The death of the driver of the auto proves that the accident occurred as stated by the claimants. These contentions are without merits. The First Information Report registered against the driver of the Auto was closed on the ground that the driver of the auto was died. The death of the driver of the auto proves that the accident occurred as stated by the claimants. The death of the driver of the auto disproves the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the auto was not involved in the accident and the deceased sustained injuries due to his own fault and died. Further, the respondents 1 to 5 have examined PW-2 as eyewitness and marked Ex.P1 and Exs.P5 to P8 to prove the accident was due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the auto and the Alagu Murugan died due to the injuries suffered by him in the accident. The appellant failed to let in any evidence to disprove the contention of the respondents 1 to 5. Exs.C.1 and C.2 show that only due to the death of the driver of the auto, the case was closed. As rightly held by the Tribunal, the above said documents do not advance the case of the appellant. The Tribunal appreciating the entire evidence, passed the award granting compensation by giving cogent and valid reason. Therefore, there is no reason warranting interference by this Court. 12. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 13. The appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire award amount to the credit of M.C.O.P. No. 1486 of 2000, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Third Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai, less the amount already deposited, if any, along with interest and costs within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the respondents 1 to 5 are permitted to withdraw the said award amount, as apportioned by the Tribunal, less the amount, if any, already withdrawn, by making necessary application before the Tribunal.