The National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Sundaramurthy (deceased)1.Parvathi2.S.Arivusudar3.R.Rajesh Kanna

1IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 25.01.2019CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANIC.M.A.No.507 of 2019and C.M.P.No.1762 of 2019 The National Insurance Co. Ltd.,Rep. By its Branch Manager, No.40, Rastha Manaveli Road, No.2 Road, Mayiladuthurai. ... Appellant Vs. Sundaramurthy (deceased)

Parvathi2.S.Arivusudar3.R.Rajesh Kanna ... Respondents(cause title amended vide order of court dated18.01.2013 made in M.P.No.1 of 2013 inC.M.A.SR.No.62553 of 2008)(R2 was set exparte before the Tribunal)Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 06.12.2006, made in M.C.O.P.No.115 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karaikal. For Appellant : Ms.N.B.Surekha http://www.judis.nic.in 2 J U D G M E N TThis Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company against the award dated 06.12.2006, made in M.C.O.P.No.115 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karaikal.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the materials available on record.

The appellant-Insurance Company is 3rd respondent in M.C.O.P.No.115 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karaikal. Initially, the deceased Sundaramurthy filed the said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that took place on 17.06.2003. Pending claim petition, the said Sundaramurthy died and 1st respondent, his wife was impleaded as his legal heir. The Tribunal, considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the 2nd respondent, rider of the motorcycle belonging to the 3rd respondent and directed the appellant-Insurance Company as well as the respondents 2 and 3 to http://www.judis.nic.in 3jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs.1,76,000/- as compensation to the 1st respondent. Challenging the said award dated 06.12.2006, made in M.C.O.P.No.115 of 2003 granting compensation to the 1st respondent, the appellant-Insurance Company has come out with the present appeal.

It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company that the Tribunal relying upon the FIR and evidence of P.W.3, erroneously held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding by the 2nd respondent. The Tribunal having held that Sundaramurthy did not die due to the injuries sustained in the accident, ought to have dismissed the claim petition instead of granting compensation to the 1st respondent, legal heir of the deceased. In any event, the compensation granted by the Tribunal under different heads are excessive. The said contentions are contrary to the materials on records. The Tribunal considering Ex.A1-FIR filed against the 2nd respondent, rider of the motorcycle, in the absence of any independent witness by the appellant, except P.W.3, held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent riding by the 2nd respondent, rider of the motorcycle belonging to the 3rd respondent. The Tribunal considering the evidence on record, fixed the monthly income of the deceased at http://www.judis.nic.in 4Rs.2,400/- and applying the multiplier of '13', granted compensation towards loss of income. The Tribunal considering all the materials on record in proper perspective, awarded compensation under different heads which are not excessive. There is no error in the said award warranting interference by this Court.