Madras High Court
The Branch Manager vs V.Tamil Selvi on 21 April, 2021
C.M.A.No.3642 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.04.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
C.M.A.No.3642 of 2013
and M.P.No.1 of 2013
The Branch Manager
National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Branch Office, First Floor,
No.27-33-31, Gudavallavari
Vijayawada, Krishna District,
Andhra Pradesh 520 002. ... Appellant
-vs-
1.V.Tamil Selvi
2.M.Pugalendhi
3.M.Sagunthala
4.M.Parthasarathi ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, against the Judgment and Decree dated 08.01.2013 in
M.C.O.P.No.594 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Principal District Judge) at Krishnagiri.
1/8
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.3642 of 2013
For Appellant : M/s.Sree Vidhya
For Respondents : M/s.S.Velumurugan for R1 to R3
R4 Notice Served
M/s.D.Raghu for R5
R6 Exparte
*********
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the Judgment
and Decree dated 08.01.2013 in M.C.O.P.No.594 of 2010 on the file of the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge) at Krishnagiri.
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 claimants are that on 12.07.2009 the deceased was
travelling in the first respondent's bus as Duty Conductor from Bangalore to
Salem. When the bus was driven by its driver at about one hour namely at
01.00 A.M on 13.07.2009, when it was proceeding in Krishnagiri to Salem
National Highways Road towards Salem near Kaveripattinam Pothapuram
Plyover Bridge, the driver of the first respondent's bus was driven in a rash
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.3642 of 2013
and negligent manner and dashed behind the parked lorry, belonging to the
second respondent. Due to which, the deceased sustained fatal injuries on
his vital organs and died on the spot. The deceased was 54 years at the
time of accident and he was drawing a salary of Rs.16,283/- per month.
Hence, the claim petition.
4. Resisting the same, the third respondent filed the counter stating
that the lorry belonged to the second respondent was parked with due
signals. Unfortunately the driver of the first respondent's bus without
noticing the signal of the lorry and dashed behind the lorry. Therefore, the
third respondent is no way liable to pay any compensation.
5. On the side of the claimants, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and
Ex.P1 to Ex.P11 were marked. On the side of the respondents R.W.1 was
examined and Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 were marked. On perusal of the evidence
available on records and also considering the submission made by the
learned counsel appearing on either side, the Tribunal found that a sum of
Rs.10,21,080/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Twenty One Thousand and Eighty only)
as compensation payable by the first, second and third respondents are
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.3642 of 2013
liable to pay equally. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed the present
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent would
submit that only on the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent,
the accident was took place. Even according to the claimants, the driver of
the bus was driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed behind the
lorry which was parked on the road with signal indications that the lorry
was parked without any movements. The FIR was also registered as against
the driver of the first respondent's bus and he was charge sheeted. To
substantiate the same, the Sub Inspector of Police of Kaveripattinam Police
Station was examined as R.W.1. He deposed that though FIR was
registered as against the driver of the first respondent as well as the driver of
the second respondent, finally charge sheeted only as against the driver of
the first respondent. Therefore, the third respondent is not liable to pay any
compensation and the entire liability has to be fastened on the first
respondent's bus to pay compensation to the claimants.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.3642 of 2013
7. Heard Mrs.Sree Vidhya, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and Mr.S.Velumurugan, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.D.Raghu, learned counsel appearing for the fifth
respondent.
8. On perusal of the records revealed that the lorry belongs to the
second respondent was parked on the four lane road at Pothapuram Plyover
Bridge, Krishnagiri to Salem National Highways Road near Kaveripattinam.
It is a four lane road and there is a specific bey for parking lorries. The
second respondent has no right to park his lorry on the main road, since on
the said road there is always heavy traffic. Even, if the parking lamp
blinking in a lorry, the lamp and reflector covered with all mud and dust and
it cannot be viewed by any vehicle. Therefore, it is very dangerous to park
the vehicle on the main road without any signal. If the lorry got any repair
or any mechanical fault, there is no other way, it can be parked. There is no
evidence to say that the lorry belongs to the second respondent was got
repair and therefore, parked on the road.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.3642 of 2013
9. At that juncture, the driver of the first respondent's bus hit the lorry
which was parked on the road. Due to which the deceased sustained
grievous injuries and died. Though the jurisdiction Police charge sheeted as
against the driver of the bus, since no charge sheet can be filed on the lorry
which was parked on the road without any driver. It does not mean that the
entire liability can be fastened on the first respondent's bus. Therefore, the
Tribunal rightly awarded the compensation and fixed contributed negligence
on the part of the second respondent's lorry as well as the first respondent's
bus. Therefore, this Court finds no infirmity or irregularity in the order
passed by the Court below.
10. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There
shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
21.04.2021
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
rna
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.3642 of 2013
To
1.The Principal District Judge,
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Krishnagiri.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.3642 of 2013
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
rna
C.M.A.No.3642 of 2013
and M.P.No.1 of 2013
21.04.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
