Madras High Court
Branch Manager vs J.Nagarathinam on 20 April, 2021
C.M.A.(MD).No.627 of 2009
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 20.04.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM
C.M.A.(MD).No.627 of 2009
and
M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2009
Branch Manager ... Appellant
vs.
1.J.Nagarathinam
2.S.Mahalakshmi
3.V.Tamilselvi
4.T.Murugesan
... Respondents
Prayer: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 16.09.2008 made
in M.C.O.P.No.160 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Sub Court, Palani.
For Appellant : Mr.B.Vijay Karthikeyan
For R1 to R3 : Mr.P.Periasamy
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/6
C.M.A.(MD).No.627 of 2009
JUDGMENT
The appellant herein challenges the award passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Palani made in M.C.O.P.No.160
of 2002.
2. The respondents 1 to 3 herein are the mother and sisters of
the deceased J.Kannan, who sustained injury in an accident that had
taken place on 06.07.2001. The claimants would state that the deceased
along with his brother-in-law Veluchmy was waiting at the bus stop at
Reddiyarchatram - Dindigul Main Road. At that time, a Hero Honda
bearing Registration No.TN 57 Y 9292 came in a rash and negligent
manner and dashed against the deceased. Immediately, he was rushed to
the City Hospital, Dindigul and he was treated as in-patient for about 13
days and on that day, they incurred expenditure at Rs.45,000/-.
3. It is further averred in the claim petition that even though
the deceased was discharged from the hospital, he become allergic due to
the medicines administered during the treatment, for his leg fracture,
eventually he died on 02.01.2002. It is the further case of the claimants
that the deceased was 25 year old and he was earning Rs.4,000/- per
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.(MD).No.627 of 2009
month by doing tailoring work and hence, they are entitled for
compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- from the owner as well as insurer of the
offending vehicle.
3. The appellant filed a counter before the Tribunal to oppose
the claim petition. The age, income and the manner of accident stated in
the claim petition were disputed and denied by the appellant. It is stated
that the rider of the motorcycle drove it very slowly and carefully, by
observing the road traffic rules, but, the deceased had suddenly tried to
cross the road, thereby voluntarily met with the accident. So, liability to
be fixed on the Insurance Company.
4. During trial, brother-in-law of the deceased was examined as
P.W.2 and he has spoken about the accident in the line of the averments
made in the claim petition. The claimants also produced Ex.P1 / First
Information Report, Ex.P2 / Charge Sheet and Ex.P5 / Judgment of the
Criminal Court to show that the rider of the two wheeler was prosecuted
and convicted by the Criminal Court. Ex.P3 is the Wound Certificate and
Ex.P6 is the Medical Bills series. The appellant also examined one
Rajendrdan as R.W.1. After analysing the evidence oral and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.(MD).No.627 of 2009
documentary, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident
occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the two wheeler and
awarded Rs.1,25,000/- along with interest at 7.5%. Questioning the
award, the present appeal has been filed.
5. Mr.P.Vijay Karthikeyan, learned counsel for the appellant
would submit that the deceased sustained only fracture in his legs and he
was discharged from the hospital after recovery and he died after lapse of
six months ie. on 02.01.2002. According to the learned counsel, no
material was produced by the claimants to show that the deceased died in
consequence of the injuries sustained in the accident and the dead body
was also not subjected to postmortem. Therefore, the judgment of the
Tribunal is to be set aside.
6. I am unable to agree with the submission of the learned
counsel for the appellant for the reason that Ex.P1 and the evidence of
P.W.2 would reveal that the deceased sustained injuries and fracture in
the accident that had taken place on 06.07.2001. In the claim petition
itself it has been categorically stated that the deceased developed allergy,
due to the medicines administered during the treatment for the fracture
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.(MD).No.627 of 2009
sustained in the leg. The police investigated the crime and filed a final
report against the driver and he was also convicted by the Criminal
Court. So, there cannot be any dispute that the deceased sustained injury
in the accident occurred on 06.07.2001. The medical bills and the wound
certificate were also produced to establish, the deceased had health issues
on account of injuries sustained in the accident till he breathed his last. It
is true that no postmortem was conducted for the deceased Kannan and
the claimants failed to examine the Doctor to prove the averments in the
claim petition. Even then, in my view, the claimants have established
their case through other materials. The quantum appears to be
reasonable.
7. In the light of the above finding, I find no reason to over
turn the conclusion reached by the Tribunal.
8. In fine, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal fails and the same is
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition
is closed.
20.04.2021
akv
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.(MD).No.627 of 2009
K.KALYANASUNDARAM,J
akv
To
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Sub Court,
Palani.
C.M.A.(MD).No.627 of 2009
20.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
