High CourtsSINGLE BENCH(2017) 10 MAD CK 0009

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited vs Asan Gani, & Ors.

Madras High Court · Decided on 20 October 2017

HON’BLE JUDGES
G.R.Swaminathan
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
313 of 2015 and M P (MD) No 1 of 2015

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

12 paragraphs · 239 words
1.

This civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company, questioning the award dated 29.08.2013 made in M.C.O.P.No.1175

of 2013, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special Subordinate Judge), Tiruchirappalli.

2.

The claimant herein was travelling as a passenger in the bus belonging to the third respondent on 06.03.2005. The lorry insured by the appellant

herein coming from the opposite direction dashed against the bus. The claimant was injured. Crime NO.47 of 2005 was registered against the lorry

driver on the file of Valanadu Police Station. Before the Tribunal, the lorry driver was not examined as a witness by the Insurance Company or the

lorry owner. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly fixed the negligence on the lorry driver.

3.

The learned counsel for the appellant would take pains to argue that the Tribunal erred in fixing the entire negligence on the lorry driver. But,

since the evidence was not adduced on these lines before the Tribunal, the Tribunal came to the findings that the lorry driver drove the vehicle in a

rash and negligent manner and caused the accident.

4.

I am not in a position to take a different view. The said findings stands confirmed. The claimant was awarded a sum of Rs.14,703/- as

compensation for the injuries suffered by him. This cannot be said to be excessive. There is no merit in this appeal. It stands dismissed.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.