Madras High Court
Padmavathi Ammal vs Kanakaraj on 16 February, 2021
C.M.A.No.1461 of 2000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16.2.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1461 of 2000
1. Padmavathi Ammal
2 Rajagopal ... Petitioners/Appellants
..Vs..
1. Kanakaraj
2. J.Dharmalingam
3 M/s.United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Madras – 14. ... Respondents/Respondents
Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
against the Judgement and decree dated 22.7.1993 made in M.C.O.P.No.291 of
1985 on the file of Principal Sub Judge (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) Vellore.
For Appellant : Mr.Manikka Sivasubramani for
M/s.V.Raghavachari
For Respondent No.3 : Ms.Srividya
For Respondents 1 & 2 : No appearance
*****
JUDGMENT
Brief facts of the case is as follows:
According to the appellants, on 15.3.1985 at about 4.45 p.m. when
the deceased Janarthanan was walking along the Velappadi Bagayam road, at
southern side of the Velappadi bridge, a bus bearing registration No.TN-J-5384
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1461 of 2000
driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the deceased
Janarthanan, thereby caused accident, resulting in the deceased sustained fatal
injuries. Thereafter, he was admitted in hospital where he was declared dead.
According to the appellants, the second respondent being the owner and the third
respondent being the insurer of the vehicle, both are jointly and severally liable to
pay compensation to the claimants.
2. On the side of the claimants, P.W.1 and 2 were examined and
Ex.P1 to P5 were marked. On the side of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined and
Ex.R1 & R2 were marked.
3 Tribunal, based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced by
the claimants, dismissed the claim petition. Challenging the said award, the
claimants have filed the present appeal against the award passed by the tribunal
against the claimants.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the claimants/appellants
and the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent/Insurance company
and perused the materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1461 of 2000
5. Tribunal considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced
by both parties, came to the conclusion that the claimants failed to prove that the
vehicle in question involved in the accident on a particular day. The tribunal
disbelieving the evidence of P.W.1 and 2 rejected the claim petition. Assailing the
said award passed by the tribunal, the claimants have filed the present appeal.
6 The learned counsel appearing for the claimants/appellants
submitted that the brother of the deceased was working in the Police department.
P.W.2 was eye witness to the accident. He informed to the brother of the
deceased, Police Constable about the accident occurred on that day. A complaint
was lodged before the Police, F.I.R. was registered and the case was tried before
the Judicial Magistrate Court. Driver of the vehicle in question was acquitted from
the criminal proceedings. The appellants have filed a claim petition before the
tribunal. Tribunal without considering the evidence adduced by the appellants in
proper perspective, wrongly dismissed the claim petition which is unsustainable in
law.
7 When the appeal was taken up for hearing on 11.8.2009, this
Court found that the F.I.R. which was registered on the basis of the complaint
given by a police official who was not examined before the tribunal, Ex.P4 did not
speak about any damage caused to the bus, tribunal came to the conclusion that
no clinching evidence was available before the Tribunal to come to a conclusion
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1461 of 2000
that the alleged bus involved in the accident. After hearing both sides, on the
request of the appellants, the award was remanded to the tribunal by directing
the tribunal to record evidence under Order 41 Rule 25 of the Code and also
directed the tribunal to submit a report regarding genuineness of the involvement
of the bus in the accident at the relevant point of time. Pursuant to the order
passed by this Court, both sides appeared before the tribunal and the appellants
filed an amendment petition before the tribunal. P.W.3, 4 and 5 were examined
on the side of the appellants and the respondent/Insurance Company cross
examined the witnesses. After recording the evidence, the tribunal had
elaborately considered the issue, especially the Ex.P4 report of the Motor Vehicle
Inspector stating that the particulars of the driver and other records were not
furnished and and therefore, tribunal came to the conclusion that there is no
clinching evidence to prove that the alleged bus involved in the accident causing
death of the deceased.
8 According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, the
deceased Janarthanan died due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus
bearing registration No.TN-J-5384 thereby caused accident on 15.3.1985. The
acquittal of the driver of the bus in the criminal case would not stand in the way
of the claim petition and the same has to be decided on its own merit. The
evidence of P.W.2 clearly speaks about the involvement of the bus in the accident
and the death of the deceased. During cross examination, he clearly stated that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1461 of 2000
he did not lodge complaint. He only adduced evidence before the tribunal.
Therefore, the tribunal has rejected his evidence. Pursuant to the direction of
this Court, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5 were examined. P.W.3 Police constable,
brother of the deceased who lodged a complaint before the Police. P.W.5,
Inspector of Police who registered the complaint. Tribunal found that the
evidence of P.W.2 is inconsistent with the evidence of P.W.3 and also disbelieved
the evidence of P.W.4. P.W.5 deposed that he arrested the driver of the bus at
the time of accident and sent the bus to the Motor Vehicle Inspector for
inspection. However, in Ex.P4, Motor Vehicle Inspector has stated that name and
address of the driver and driving licence particulars were not furnished.
Therefore, the tribunal has came to the conclusion that there is no evidence or
materials to prove that the bus bearing registration No.TN-J-5384 involved in the
accident thereby caused the death of the deceased and submitted a report before
this Court. Copy of the report was also gone through by both sides. Further, even
though driver of the bus acquitted in the criminal case, the claim petition was
independently decided by the tribunal on its own merit. Therefore, the tribunal
has rightly dismissed the claim petition. Such view of the matter, there is no
warrant to interfere with the award passed by the tribunal.
9. In fine, the appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
16.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1461 of 2000
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
vaan
Speaking/Non Speaking order
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
vaan
To
1. The Principal Sub Judge (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) Vellore
2. M/s.United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Madras – 14.
3. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, Madras High Court, Chennai-104.
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1461 of 2000
16.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
