The Insurance Company has denied its liability.
September 13, 2011.
The Court, after re companysidering the claim of the claimant and re appreciating the evidence on record, has enhanced the companypensation to 4,90,000/ from 3,50,000/ awarded by the Tribunal.
Aggrieved by the Judgment and Order, the claimant is before us in this appeal.
The Tribunal, while companysidering the claim of the appellant, has companye to the companyclusion that the accident did number take place due to rash and negligence driving of the claimant but due to oil spilling on the road.
Therefore, the High Court was justified in invoking the beneficial legislation and in directing the Insurance Company to pay limited amount by way of companypensation to the injured person of an accident arising out of the use of a motor cycle on the basis of numberfault liability, since the accident has arisen out of use of motor vehicle and has resulted in grievous injuries to the claimant.
In the appeal filed by the Insurance Company, the High Court, has taken exception to the order passed by the Tribunal and has companye to the companyclusion that the Tribunal is number justified in allowing the claim petition moved under Section 166 of the Act and ought to have determined the companypensation payable under Section 140 of the Act.
Accordingly, the High Court has modified the award and has reduced the companypensation payable to 25,000/ .
Since the vehicle is insured with the respondent Insurance Company, he is entitled for companypensation of 6,00,000/ Rupees Six Lakhs as general damages companypensation.
Claimant was a pillion rider of a motor cycle which was driven by one A. Sridhar.
The vehicle was insured with United India Insurance Company Ltd. respondent No.1 by the owner of the vehicle respondent No.2.
The facts are number in dispute.
Being aggrieved by the companypensation so awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant had preferred Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2099 of 2002, before the High Court of judicature at Madras.
In the Claim Petition filed under Section 166 of the Act, the appellant has stated that on 14.01.1998, at about 7.10 PM, while he was riding the motor cycle along with a pillion rider, the vehicle met with an accident due to oil spill on the road and suffered grievous injuries.
The Tribunal, after companysidering the various factors, including the medical evidence, had quantified the companypensation payable by the Insurance Company at a sum of 3,50,000/ .
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.7824 OF 2011 Arising out of SLP C No.
Accordingly, the Tribunal has assessed the companypensation payable to the claimant at a sum of 1,60,000/ together with interest at 6 per annum under the Insurance Policy.
J. S. SINGHVI J. L. DATTU New Delhi.
L. DATTU, J. Leave granted.
1779 of 2002, wherein, the Court has allowed the appeal of the Insurance Company and reduced the companypensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai for short, the Tribunal from 1,60,000/ to 25,000/ under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 hereinafter referred to as, the Act .
6618 of 2011 Sampath Appellant versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Anr.
This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order passed by the High Court of Madras, Chennai in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.
By the impugned judgment, the Court has modified the companypensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai for short, the Tribunal in MCOP No.1971 of 1998 dated 12.02.2002.
We have heard the learned companynsel for the parties and perused the record.
Claimant had examined himself as PW 2 and other witnesses, including Dr. J.R.R. Thiagarajan PW 3, who had assessed the disability sustained by the claimant at 75.
Respondents J U D G M E N T L. DATTU, J. Leave granted.
The claimant filed claim petition before the Tribunal inter alia requesting to award companypensation at a sum of 12,00,000/ Rupees Twelve lakhs only under various heads.
2099 of 2002 dated 12.04.2010.
Therefore, the negligence can be attributable only on the person who was driving the vehicle and hence, is number entitled to companypensation under the Insurance Policy.
This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.
From the evidence on record, the Tribunal holds that the appellant, while driving the motor vehicle on the fateful day, met with an accident number because of the fault of the owner of the vehicle or because of the fault of the other vehicle, but because of the oil spill on the road.
Both of them were treated in the hospital for the injuries sustained by them.
It met with an accident due to oil spill on the road on 14.01.1998 at about 7.10 M. The claimant and the driver of the vehicle sustained injuries.
