AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Govardhan, J.—The petitioner in M.C.O.P. No. 846/83 is the appellant in C.M.A. No. 145/87 and the second respondent in that
M.C.O.P. is the appellant in C.M.A. No. 1/87. The petitioner''s case is briefly as follows:
On 22.3.1983 when the petitioner was proceeding from his college to Anna Nagar via Poonamallee High Road, a tractor with power huller
bearing registration No. TMR 7962 driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the petitioner and pushed him to 25 feet. The petitioner
sustained injuries. The petitioner therefore, made a claim for Rs. 2,50,000/-. The second respondent in their counter contended as follows: No
claim has been made by the owner of the vehicle. The driver of the vehicle had only a licence to drive light motor vehicle. Therefore, the second
respondent is bound to pay Rs. 50,000/-only as per the policy. The petition is liable to be dismissed.
On the above pleadings, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madras held an enquiry and gave a finding that the accident was due to the rash
and negligent driving of the tractor and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 70,000/- and directed the second respondent to deposit the same in
court. The second respondent-insurance company has come forward with C.M.A. No. 1/87 against the direction given to it to deposit the entire
amount. The petitioner has come forward with C.M.A. No. 145/87 claiming higher compensation.
Since both the appeals arise out of a common order, they were taken up together. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant in C.M.A. No.
145/87 has merely stated that he is leaving it to the discretion of the Court. Since the appellant in C.M.A. No. 145/87 has not pointed out any
ground to enable him to claim more compensation than what has been awarded by the Tribunal. C.M.A. No. 145/87 is liable to be dismissed as of
no merits.
As far as C.M.A. No. 1/87 is concerned learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the liability of the insurance company is
only Rs. 50,000/- and yet the Tribunal has directed them to deposit Rs. 70,000/- and the appeal is restricted only regarding their liability and not
on the other question whether the claimant is entitled to any compensation. The order in the MCOP has been passed on 26.3.1986, subsequent to
the amendment of Section 95(2) (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act on 1.10.1982. As per the amended Section 95(2) (a) of the Act, the extent of the
liability of the insurer is upto Rs. 1,50,000/-. The compensation awarded is only Rs. 70,000/-. Therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal
directing the appellant in C.M.A. No. 1/87 to deposit the entire amount of Rs. 70,000/- with interest at 12% per annum is well founded and does
not call for any interference by this Court. In that view, C.M.A. No. 1/87 is liable to be dismissed as of no merits. In the result C.M.A. No.
145/87 are dismissed. No costs.