Madras High Court
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs K.Gajendran on 20 April, 2021
C.M.A.No.682 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.04.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
C.M.A.No.682 of 2011 and
M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2011
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd,
F.46, First Main Road,
Anna Nagar East,
Chennai-600 102. ... Appellant
Versus
1. K.Gajendran
2. R.Subramanian ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, against the order and decree dated 06.07.2010 made in
M.C.O.P. No.1692/2006 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(VI Court of Small Causes) at Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.A.Salomi
For 1st Respondent : Ms.Revathy
for Mr.R.Nalliappan
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.682 of 2011
JUDGMENT
This appeal is laid as against the judgment and decree dated
06.07.2010 made in M.C.O.P. No.1692/2006 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (VI Court of Small Causes) at Chennai.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to
hereunder according to their litigative status before the Tribunal.
3. The case of the claimant is that on 02.04.2006 at about 11.15
hours, when he along with two other students were travelling in a Bike rided
by the 1st respondent met with an accident due to which the petitioner
sustained grievous injuries on his left leg and got fracture on his fibula and
tibia. He was 21 years at the time of the accident and he was working as a
Part time Worker in Vasantha Bhavan Hotel, Ayyanavaram and was earning
Rs.3,500/- p.m. Immediately after the accident, he was taken to
Government Kilpauk Medical College Hospital and admitted as in-patient.
Hence, he claimant filed a petition for compensation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.682 of 2011
4. Resisting the same, the 2nd respondent filed a counter stating
that the Motor Cycle was not covered by valid Insurance policy and the
rider of the vehicle has no valid driving licence. It is further stated that the
1st respondent was under the influence of alcohol and as such, the claimant
is not entitled for any compensation.
5. On the side of the claimant, he examined P.W.1 and P.W.2 and
marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P14. On the side of the 2nd respondent, R.W.1 was
examined and Ex.R1 to R5 marked. On the basis of the evidence available
on records and also considering the submission made by the learned counsel
appearing on either side, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of
Rs.1,35,650/- being payable by the respondents. Aggrieved by the same, the
2nd respondent came forward with the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant would contend
that either the claimant as a pillion rider or a pedestrian, he is being a third
party, therefore, he is entitled for compensation. The Two Wheeler of the 1st
respondent was duly insured with the 2nd respondent and the policy covers
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.682 of 2011
the third party and as such, he is entitled for compensation. The 1st
respondent was under the influence of alcohol and as such, the Tribunal has
held that the compensation to be payable by the 2nd respondent and they are
at liberty to recover the same from the 1st respondent.
7. Per contra, learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent would
contend that in the Claim Petition of the claimant, it was stated that as
though he was also one of the pillion riders of the Motor Cycle which was
driven by the 1st respondent whereas he deposed as P.W.1 and categorically
stated that he is a pedestrian and while he was crossing the Medavakkam
Tank Road from East to West therein, the 1st respondent has driven his
motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner from north to south and dashed
against him. Therefore, he sustained grievous injuries. He further
submitted that in fact a case was registered as against the 1st respondent in
Cr.No.124/AS1/06 dated 02.04.2006 for the offences under Section 338 of
IPC and Sections 184 and 185 of Motor Vehicles Act. It is categorically
proved by Ex.R.2 to R.4. Therefore, the 2nd respondent is not at all held
responsible for payment of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.682 of 2011
8. Heard Ms.Revathy, learned counsel appearing for the claimant
and Mr.A.Salomi, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent.
9. The petitioner is a pillion rider of the Two Wheeler rided by the
1st respondent. The 1st respondent had driven the motor cycle in a rash and
negligent manner and caused the accident due to which the petitioner
sustained fracture on his tibia and fibula of left leg. Immediately, he was
taken to the Government Kilpauk Medical College Hospital and admitted as
inpatient from 03.04.2006 to 25.04.2006. The only ground raised by the 2nd
respondent is that when the petitioner had taken two stands that he filed a
Claim Petition as a Pillion rider and he deposed as if he is a pedestrian and
while he was crossing the road, the 1st respondent rided his motor cycle in a
rash and negligent manner and dashed against him, he is not entitled for any
compensation. Whether the petitioner is either pillion rider or pedestrian, is
a third party and the vehicle owned by the 1st respondent was duly insured
with the 2nd respondent. However, the 1st respondent committed an accident
under the influence of alcohol and as such, a case was registered against
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.682 of 2011
him under Sections 338 of IPC and Sections 184 and 185 of the Motor
Vehicles Act. He was also admitted his guilty and paid fine. Therefore, the
Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation payable by the 2nd
respondent with liberty to recover the same from the 1st respondent.
Therefore, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the award of the
Tribunal.
10. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal fails and the same
is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions
are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
20.04.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet: Yes/no
Speaking/Non-speaking Order
tsi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.682 of 2011
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
( VI Court of Small Causes),
Chennai.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.682 of 2011
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
tsi
C.M.A.No.682 of 2011
20.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
