Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1012 (MAD)

National Insurance Co. Ltd. , Erode v. Baby

2020-07-13

ABDUL QUDDHOSE

body2020
JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and decree in MACTOP.No.233 of 2011 dated 29.01.2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode.) (This Appeal has been taken up for hearing through Video conferencing) 1. This Appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the Award dated 29.01.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in MCOP.No.233 of 2011. 2. The Insurance company has challenged the impugned award on the ground that they are not liable to pay the compensation and they have also challenged the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. It is the contention of the Appellant that the rider of the insured motor cycle did not possess valid driving license and hence, they are not liable to pay the compensation. It is also their case that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the Claimant under various heads is excessive. 3. Heard Mrs.N.B.Surekha learned counsel for the Appellant. Despite service of notice on the respondents, there is no representation on their side. 4. Before the Tribunal, the claimant has filed 13 documents which were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A13 and two witnesses were examined namely the claimant herself as PW1 and her doctor who examined her as PW2. On the side of the Appellant insurance company, five documents were filed which were marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B5 and two witnesses were examined as RW1 and RW2. 5. The claimant sustained injuries as a result of an accident caused by the insured motor cycle. The nature of injuries sustained by the claimant which is supported by Ex.A8 medical bills, Ex.A9-Inpatient Card, Ex.A10- X Ray, Ex.A11-Disability certificate, Ex.A12-X Ray and Ex.A13-X Ray Bills as well as the oral evidence has not been disproved by the Appellant by letting in any contra evidence. The claimant was a pedestrian when the insured motor cycle hit against her causing injuries to her which has also not been disputed by the Appellant insurance company as seen from the evidence available on record. 6. It is settled law that in case of policy violation and when the rider of the insured motor cycle was not possessing a valid driving licence, the insurance company will have to necessarily pay the claimant and recover the same from the owner of the motor cycle who is the insured. 6. It is settled law that in case of policy violation and when the rider of the insured motor cycle was not possessing a valid driving licence, the insurance company will have to necessarily pay the claimant and recover the same from the owner of the motor cycle who is the insured. The Tribunal under the impugned award has rightly granted pay and recovery rights to the Appellant as per the settled law laid down by various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the High Courts including the Judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company vs. Swaran Singh & Others reported in 2004 (3) SCC 297 . Therefore the contention of the Appellant that they are not liable to pay compensation on account of non possessing of driving licence by the rider of the insured motor cycle has to be necessarily rejected which has also been rightly done so by the Tribunal in the impugned Award. 7. Insofar as the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, the injury sustained by the Claimant as well as the accident has not been disputed by the Appellant Insurance Company as seen from the evidence available on record. This Court has considered the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads and is of the considered view that the same is reasonable and is a just compensation and it does not call for any interference. 8. However, under the impugned award, the Tribunal has awarded future interest at 9 % per annum which is not the settled practice adopted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals all over Tamil Nadu. The settled practice is that only 7.5% per annum is awarded as future interest. Considering the settled practice, this Court is of the considered view that the interest portion alone needs to be modified and accordingly, the same is modified and reduced from 9% to 7.5 % per annum. 9. For the foregoing reasons, this Appeal is partly allowed by modifying the interest portion alone. Considering the settled practice, this Court is of the considered view that the interest portion alone needs to be modified and accordingly, the same is modified and reduced from 9% to 7.5 % per annum. 9. For the foregoing reasons, this Appeal is partly allowed by modifying the interest portion alone. The Appellant Insurance Company is directed to deposit the Award amount as assessed by the Tribunal together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim till the date of deposit and costs after deducting the amount already deposited to the credit of MCOP.No.323 of 2009 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such deposit being made, the first respondent is permitted to withdraw the amount lying to the credit of MCOP.No.323 of 2009 along with accrued interest by a filing appropriate application. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.