Skip to content


The United India Insurance Company Ltd. represented through its Divisional Manager, Madurai Vs. Chitra and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation
CourtChennai Madurai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberC.M.A.(MD)No. 1041 of 2012 & M.P.(MD)No. 1 of 2012
Judge
AppellantThe United India Insurance Company Ltd. represented through its Divisional Manager, Madurai
RespondentChitra and Others
Excerpt:
.....assurance company has preferred the present appeal on the ground of quantum and liability. 2. the learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the vehicle which met with the accident was used for hire purposes and accordingly, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. the second point raised by the appellant is that the quantum of award granted by the tribunal is in excessive, in view of the fact that the deceased was not having any dependant at the time of death and all her children were majors and were independently employed. such being the case of the deceased, the tribunal ought not to have granted compensation of rs.3,75,000/- which has to be reduced. 3. the learned counsel for the respondents opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for the.....
Judgment:

(Prayer:Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated 03.04.2012 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1923 of 2009, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District and Sessions Judge) (Fast Track Court No.3), Madurai.)

1. It is a case of a fatal accident caused on account of an accident occurred on 21.04.2009 at 16.30 hours near Sivagangai - Melur main road. The legal heirs of the deceased filed an application seeking compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Principal District Judge, Madurai and the Tribunal considering the facts and circumstances of the case, awarded a sum of Rs.3,75,000/- as total compensation. Challenging the same, the appellant United India Assurance Company has preferred the present appeal on the ground of quantum and liability.

2. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the vehicle which met with the accident was used for hire purposes and accordingly, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. The second point raised by the appellant is that the quantum of award granted by the Tribunal is in excessive, in view of the fact that the deceased was not having any dependant at the time of death and all her children were majors and were independently employed. Such being the case of the deceased, the Tribunal ought not to have granted compensation of Rs.3,75,000/- which has to be reduced.

3. The learned Counsel for the respondents opposed the contentions of the learned Counsel for the appellant by stating that the deceased was actually supporting their children and further, in respect of the liability, the Tribunal had rightly ordered for pay and recovery in respect of violation of policy condition and hence, the present appeal deserves no consideration.

4. This Court is able to appreciate the contentions made by the learned Counsel for the respondents/claimants and accordingly, the present appeal deserves no consideration and in all other aspects, the finding of the Tribunal is in order and the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal is just compensation and it cannot be described as excessive. Hence, the award passed by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.NO.1923 of 2009, dated 03.04.2012 is hereby confirmed and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.

5. It is represented by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the entire award amount had already been deposited. Hence, the respondents/claimants are permitted to withdraw the entire award amount along with interest and costs through RTGS by filing necessary application before the Tribunal concerned.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //