Skip to content


Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Gowsalya and Another - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai Madurai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberC.M.A(MD)No. 379 of 2009 & M.P.(MD)No. 1 of 2009
Judge
AppellantDivisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited
RespondentGowsalya and Another
Excerpt:
motor vehicles act, 1988 - section 173 -.....insurance company ltd., filed the present c.m.a(md)no.379 of 2009, challenging the award passed in m.c.o.p.no.37 of 2007, dated 29.11.2008, on the file of the motor accidents claims tribunal cum chief judicial magistrate, tuticorin. 2. it is a case of grievous injury and the claimant filed the application for compensation. considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal awarded rs.9,53,425/- as total compensation. 3. the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent / claimant is that the lorry insured with the first respondent dashed with the ambassador car in which the respondent / claimant was travelled. considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal awarded 50/50 to both the insurance companies namely.....
Judgment:

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Award made in M.C.O.P.No.37 of 2007, dated 29.11.2008, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tuticorin.)

1. The appellant/Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., filed the present C.M.A(MD)No.379 of 2009, challenging the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.37 of 2007, dated 29.11.2008, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tuticorin.

2. It is a case of grievous injury and the claimant filed the application for compensation. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal awarded Rs.9,53,425/- as total compensation.

3. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent / claimant is that the lorry insured with the first respondent dashed with the Ambassador Car in which the respondent / claimant was travelled. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal awarded 50/50 to both the Insurance Companies namely respondents 2 and 3. Objecting the above order of the Tribunal granting 50/50 liability to two Insurance Companies, the present appellant filed this appeal. In respect of other aspects, no serious objection has been raised and accordingly the award passed by the Tribunal is confirmed.

4. Except this fact, it is stated by the respondent / claimant, that there is no specific finding on these aspects and therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal and accordingly, the order passed by the Tribunal in MCOP.No.37 of 2007, dated 29.11.2008, is confirmed and the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2010 is closed.

5. It is represented by both the learned counsels for the appellant/Insurance Company and the third respondent that their respective portion of compensation amount had already been deposited and accordingly, the respondents / claimants are permitted to withdraw the entire award amount along with accrued interest and costs by making necessary applications before the Tribunal forthwith.


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