Madras High Court
Paranthaman vs T.S.Selvakumar on 9 February, 2021
C.M.A.No.1887 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 9.2.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1887 of 2013
Paranthaman ... Appellant/Claimant
..Vs..
1. T.S.Selvakumar
2. The Manager,
United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
73-C, M.T.H. Road, 1st Floor,
Ambattur, Chennai – 600 053. ... Respondents/Respondents
Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the
Judgement and decree dated 31.12.2012 made in M.C.O.P.No.217 of 2010 on the
file of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal),
Tiruvallur.
For Appellant : Mrs.A.Sulochana
For Respondent No.2 : Mrs.Vijayakamala
For Respondent No.1 : Notice unserved
*****
JUDGMENT
Challenging the dismissal of the claim petition, by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Tiruvallur, by order, dated 31.12.2012 passed in M.C.O.P.No.217
of 2010, the claimant is before this Court to set aside the said order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1887 of 2013
2. It is the case of the claimant that on 22.10.2007 at about 2.40
p.m., while the claimant was riding his motorcycle bearing registration No.TN 22
AS 9188 to his extreme left side of the road near Vadamadurai Pettaimedu, the
driver of the Sundaram bus bearing registration No.TN 20 H 5567 belonging to the
first respondent was driven in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the
claimant, thereby caused accident, resulting in the claimant/appellant sustained
grievous injuries. Inspite of treatment, the appellant had become permanently
disabled due to the accident and he is not able to do his work as he did earlier.
Hence, the appellant has filed a claim petition claiming Rs.6,68,000/- from the
respondents and restricted his claim to Rs.5,00,000/- The first respondent being a
owner of the vehicle and the second respondent as Insurer are jointly and
severally liable to pay compensation.
3 In the counter statement filed by the second respondent/
Insurance Company wherein it is specifically stated that the appellant was under
the influence of alcohol and drowsy mood and the second respondent/Insurance
Company also denied that the appellant was having valid driving licence to drive
the vehicle at the time of accident. As such, the appellant himself contributed to
the accident. Therefore, the claim petition is liable to be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1887 of 2013
4 The Tribunal, based on the oral and documentary evidence Exs.P1
to P.7 and M.O.1 X-ray, particularly Ex.P3 report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector
and considering the fact that the appellant had no driving licence and he was
under the influence of alcohol at the time of accident. Further, the F.I.R. itself
was lodged four days after the date of accident and therefore, the tribunal
dismissed the claim petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant
and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/ Insurance Company
and perused the materials available on record.
6. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/claimant is that the tribunal failed to appreciate the fact that the bus
involved in the accident is the cause for accident and the first respondent driven
the bus in a rash and negligent manner causing accident. Even for the sake of
argument, the appellant consumed alcohol, the tribunal ought to have passed the
award in favour of the appellant, taking note of the contributory negligence on
the part of the appellant. Rejecting the entire claim in toto is totally unfair and
unfounded. Therefore, the award passed by the tribunal is liable to be set aside.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1887 of 2013
7. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/
Insurance Company has contended that the appellant was a minor at the time of
accident and no valid driving licence was produced by the appellant before the
tribunal. Further, the accident was not caused due to rash and negligent driving
on the part of the first respondent vehicle. Ex.P5 discharge summary would
disclose that the accident was occurred on account of the appellant himself fallen
from the motorcycle as he consumed alcohol at the time of driving motorcycle.
Therefore, the tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition.
8. Firstly, according to the learned counsel appearing for the second
respondent/ Insurance Company, the occurrence of accident itself is questionable.
Considering the genuineness of the accident, F.I.R. was lodged before the police
after four days of the alleged accident. There is no explanation for the delay in
filing F.I.R. before the police. Ex.P3 report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector disclose
that there is no peeling of paint on the body of the bus or scratch on the body of
the bus or there is any damage on the body of the bus. The aforesaid report
creates doubt as to whether the accident occurred as alleged by the appellant.
The appellant failed to satisfy this Court that the vehicle in question involved in
the accident on that day. Secondly, on perusal of Ex.P5 discharge summary, it
disclose that the ''plaintiff alleged to have fallen from the bike while he was under
the influence of alcohol. The discharge summary issued by the Doctor was not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1887 of 2013
disproved by the appellant before the tribunal. Thirdly, in sofar as the driving
licence to drive the vehicle, the appellant, aged 17 years has not produced valid
driving licence before the tribunal. Therefore, the appellant has not proved
before the tribunal that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent on
the part of the first respondent. Tribunal by considering the judgment of this
Court, rightly rejected the claim petition.
9. For the reasons stated in preceding paragraphs, this Court is of the
view that the tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition. Hence, there is no
warrant to interfere with the award passed by the tribunal.
10. In fine, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
9.2.2021
Speaking/Non Speaking order
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
vaan
To
1. The Chief Judicial Magistrate Court (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal),
Thiruvallur
2. The Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd., 73-C, M.T.H.Road,
1st Floor, Ambattur, Chennai 600 053.
3. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, Madras High Court, Chennai-104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1887 of 2013
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
vaan
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
No.1887 of 2013
9.2.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
