P.Muthumari vs N.Veerappan
2021 Latest Caselaw 2146 Mad

                                                                            C.M.A(MD)No.398 of 2010


                            BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                              DATED : 01.02.2021

                                                    CORAM:

                          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM

                                            C.M.A(MD)No.398 of 2010


                      P.Muthumari                                      ... Appellant

                                                       Vs.

                      1.N.Veerappan

                      2.The National Insurance Company
                        Chekkalai,
                        Karaikudi.

                      3.The Manager,
                        United India Insurance Company Limited,
                        First Floor, 76, V.O.C.Street,
                        Post Box No.28,
                        Karaikudi.                                     ... Respondents

                      PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
                      Motor Vehicles Act, against the Judgment and Decree made in M.C.O.P.
                      No.98 of 2007, dated 01.12.2009, on the file of the Motor Accident
                      Claims Tribunal/Subordinate Court, Devakottai.


                                  For Appellant           : Mr. K.Hemakarthikeyan
                                  For R-1                 : Mr.S.M.Sanjay
                                  For R-2 & R-3           : Mr.J.S.Murali

                      1/6
http://www.judis.nic.in
                                                                           C.M.A(MD)No.398 of 2010


                                                   JUDGMENT

The appellant is the claimant in MCOP.No.98 of 2007. He

sought for compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. The Tribunal having found

that the claimant was responsible for the accident, dismissed the claim

petition. Questioning the finding, the present Civil Miscellaneous

Appeal has been filed.

2.Heard, Mr. K.Hemakarthikeyan, learned counsel appearing

for the Appellant, Mr.S.M.Sanjay, learned counsel appearing for the first

respondent and Mr.J.S.Murali, learned counsel appearing for the

respondents 2 and 3.

3.This is a case of collusion between two motor cycles. The

first respondent herein N.Veerappan was a rider of a motor cycle bearing

Registration No.TN 63 V 8221 and the appellant was a rider of a motor

cycle bearing Registration No.TN 63 X 374. In the accident that had

taken place on 19.09.2005, both the riders of the two wheelers sustained

injuries. The first respondent had filed MCOP No.28 of 2006 against the

appellant and his insurer claiming compensation before the Motor

http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A(MD)No.398 of 2010

Accident Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Court) Devakottai. The Tribunal,

on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties, came to the

conclusion that the appellant herein is responsible for the accident and

awarded compensation vide judgment, dated 18.09.2006. The findings

on negligence has been confirmed by this Court in C.M.A.(MD)

No.740 of 2007, vide judgment, dated 26.08.2013.

4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the

appellant that the appellant has sustained injury in the accident and it has

been proved before the Tribunal and he is also entitled for compensation.

It is also submitted that on behalf of the appellant, totally six witnesses

were examined. But the Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence in a

proper perspective.

5.Per contra, it is contended by the learned counsel for the

respondents that the appellant is a party to MCOP No.28 of 2006 and he

is bound by the decision and this claim petition is barred by res-judicata.

I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the

respondents for the reason that the earlier claim petition was filed by the

first respondent stating that the accident took place only due to the

http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A(MD)No.398 of 2010

negligence of the claimant / appellant herein. As stated above, in the

earlier proceedings a finding has been reached to the effect that the

appellant was responsible for the incident. Admittedly, the said finding

has been passed in the presence of the appellant.

6. In such view of the matter, the Civil Miscellaneous

Appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.

01.02.2021

Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No rm

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A(MD)No.398 of 2010

To

1.The Subordinate Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Devakottai.

2.The Record Keeper, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A(MD)No.398 of 2010

K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.

rm

JUDGMENT MADE IN C.M.A(MD)No.398 of 2010

01.02.2021

http://www.judis.nic.in