Title- National Insurance Co. ltd vs N. Radhakrishnan & others connected with National Insurance Co. ltd vs T. R. Ramprakash & others.

Court- The High Court of Madras

Case No.-  C.M.A.Nos. 404 & 936 of 2014 connected with C.M.P.No.2681 of 2016 and Cros.Obj.No.64 of 2015 and Cros.Obj.No.62 of 2014.

Decided on- 30^th August, 2023.

Coram- Before J. R. Kalaimathi.

Introduction

Questioning the liability of Motor accident claims, the Insurance Company has preferred these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals against the common judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P. No. 1265 of 2008 and M.C.O.P. No. 1358 of 2007 dated 19.08.2013 on the file of Motor Accident Claim tribunal / III Additional Court, Coimbatore.

Facts

The claim petitions were filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Acts, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.25 lakhs for the injuries suffered by claimant Ramprakash in the motor accident that occurred on 14.10.2008.

The legal representatives of one Prem Shankar have also filed claim petition under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs. 20 lakhs in the death of the said person in the same accident.

The learned Tribunal, after hearing both sides and considering the oral and documentary evidence, passed an award for a sum of Rs 3,47,960/- with 7.5% p.a. and Rs 9,70,000/- with 7.5% p.a., from the date of the petition till the date of deposit in both cases, respectively.

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant Insurance Company in both Civil Miscellaneous Appeals would vehemently argue that, a perusal of the FIR would clearly reveal the fact that, it is only because of rash and negligent driving of the lorry, accident occurred and because of the negligent driving of driver of the said unknown lorry, rider of motor cycle bearing Reg No. TN27 F 2345 died and pillion rider Ramprakash injured. It is his argument that, the FIR was filed by the claimant side.

When the document is marked by claimant side, they cannot go beyond the details found in the FIR. He would further contend that, as per the FIR, it is only because of rash and negligent driving of driver of the lorry, the accident occurred and fastening the liability on the Car, which was behind the lorry and nothing to do with the accident and award passed in both the claims are totally incorrect.

The learned counsel appearing for the injured strongly contended that, FIR was registered with totally incorrect facts. It was further contended that the injured Ram Prakash is examined and Boompalan who was the Pillion rider in the Motor Cycle was the complainant and has spoken exactly how the accident occurred. The car was involved in the accident.

The prime issue in C.M.A.No. 936 of 2014 is that, Maruthi Car is not at all involved in the accident and fastening of the liability on the owner of the Maruthi Car and its insurer is questioned. The complaint was lodged by Prem Shankar who is Pillion Rider of the Motor Cycle. In the FIR, said complainant refused to sign on the ground that the details of the accident has been narrated in a different way.

In Cros. Obj.No. 62 of 2014 ( M.C.AO.P.No.1265 of 2005), it is the evidence that Ramprakash along with Prem Shankar in a Motor Cycle and Mr. Jayaprakash with Boompalan as pillion in another Motor Cycle were hit by the Maruthi Car which came suddenly in opposite direction. Ramprakash sustained fracture and Prem Shankar died on the spot.

Therefore the original petition was remitted back to Trial Court with a direction. After hearing both sides the Court dismissed the miscellaneous appeals and compensation awarded by the Tribunal was enhanced.

Question – Can The High Court enhance compensation to the claimants in a Motor Accident appeal filed by insurance company?

The Karnataka High Court has said that in an appeal against compensation filed by an Insurance Company in a Motor Accident case, the appellate court can invoke order 41 Rule 33 of CPC to enhance compensation, if injustice is caused to the victim or deceased due to compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal.

Court analysis and decision

Claimant Ramprakash’s percentage of the disability was assessed as 60%. Disability was neither assessed by Orthopedician or by the Medical Board. The disability assessment made by the Department of Rehabilitation of the Disabled was not correct. Therefore, the original petition was remitted back to the Trial Court with a direction to refer the Claimant to the Medical Board for the assessment of disability and learned Tribunal is required to pass an award preferably within a period of three months from the date of copy of this judgement.

In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeals are dismissed and quantum compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs. 9,70,000/- to Rs. 19,90,000/-. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation together with the interest of 7.5% per annum.

The Hon’ble Madras High Court

Written by- Nireesha Rao

Unfold Law – Best law firm in Bangalore, Motor accident lawyer, Civil lawyer, Insurance claim lawyer