THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN CMA No. 1194 of 2017 TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai.
The Branch Office, III Floor, Jaya Enclave, No.1057, Avinasi Road, Coimbatore-641 018. ... Appellant Vs.
1. Kandasamy
2. P. Govindaraj ...Respondents PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the judgment and Decree in MCOP No.1128 of 2014, dated 22.09.2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special Subordinate Court No.I, Salem.
For Appellant :: Mr. N. Vijayaraghavan
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company as against the award of a sum of Rs.2,14,000/- for the injuries sustained by the 1st respondent in the accident, which occurred on 11.05.2014, when he was travelling as a pillion rider in a motor cycle which was driven by the rider, in a rash and negligent manner, hitting against a TVS 50 vehicle, going in front of their motor cycle.
2. Heard, Mr. N. Vijayaragavan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
3. The Tribunal, based on pleadings and evidence, came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the two-wheeler in which the 1st respondent/claimant was travelling as a pillion rider. To come to the said conclusion, the Tribunal took note of the filing of First Information Report, namely, Ex-P1, against the rider of the two- wheeler and also the oral evidence of P.W.1. Therefore, the finding with regard to the negligence of the rider of the two-wheeler, in which the claimant had travelled, is confirmed.
4. The primary contention of the appellant is that the insurance policy is a forged document and the said document has been used by the claimant to file the claim petition and therefore, the claim is not sustainable. No doubt, the Tribunal took note of the contention made by the appellant. However, there was no evidence on the side of the appellant to prove that the insurance policy was fabricated by the owner as well as the agent of the appellant. If the agent had fabricated the insurance policy, certainly, there should have been criminal proceedings against the said agent. Further, the Tribunal had noted that in spite of the malpractice or fraudulent activity of the agent, he still continues to be an agent of the appellant Insurance Company. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly found that the contention of the appellant that the insurance policy document is a fabricated one, is without any evidence. If really, the Insurance Agent had indulged in fabrication of document, certainly, criminal proceedings would have been lodged and he would have been removed for acting against the interest of the Principal Employer and also for causing unjust enrichment to the owner. The very fact that he continues to be an agent of the appellant goes against them. Therefore, the overall circumstance of the case was rightly taken into consideration by the Tribunal and the contention in this regard, was rightly rejected by the Tribunal and the same is confirmed.
5. As far as quantum of compensation awarded for the injuries sustained by the claimant is concerned, it is based on medical records as well as the evidence of the Doctor, P.W.2 and on that score also, the appeal has to fail.
N. KIRUBAKARAN,J.
nv/mm
6. Hence, for all the reasons stated above, the appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
7. The appellant Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire award amount, with interest and costs, before the Tribunal, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit being made, the Tribunal is directed to transfer the amount to the 1st respondent/claimant's account, through RTGS, after obtaining his account details, within a period of two weeks thereafter.
07.04.2017.
nv/mm To The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special Sub Court I), Salem.
C.M.A. No. 1194 of 2017 www.judis.nic.in