Madras High Court
United India Insurance Company ... vs Satpritika on 3 March, 2021
1 CMA No..1412 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.03.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
C.M.A.No.1412 of 2017
and
C.M.P.No.7543 of 2017
United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
Micro Office, 23/1, Sankari Bye-pass Road,
Pallipalayam – 638 108. ...Appellant
Vs
1.Satpritika
2.M/s.Bisquare Life Sciences,
No.1, Kumaran Colony, 1st Street,
Vadapalani, Chennai – 600 101. ...Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award and decree dated 07.12.2016 made in
M.C.O.P.No.545 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal (Additional District Judge), Namakkal.
For Appellant : Mr.D.Bhaskaran
For Respondents : No Appearance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2 CMA No..1412 of 2017
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Inspite of notice to the
respondents, there is no representation for them particularly, the claimant,
who is the first respondent in this appeal, has received notice through post
on 04.11.2020. But she has not engaged any counsel or appeared in person.
2.The appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the
award passed by the Tribunal on the ground that the accident has occurred
purely due to the negligence of the claimant, who had no driving license and
tried to cross the central median without observing the proper traffic Rules.
However, the Tribunal, without considering the total negligence on the part
of the claimant, had fixed 25% contributory negligence on her and 75% on
the vehicle insured with the appellant, awarded a sum of Rs.6,14,335/-
payable by the Insurance Company.
3.The short facts of the case is that on 30.11.2013 at about 05.45 p.m.
when the claimant in her Yamaha Motor vehicle bearing Registration
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
No.TN 30AT 0428, tried to cross the central median on the Kandhampatti
Bye pass road, Bajaj Platinum two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN10 S
1050, coming from North to South, dashed against the motor vehicle of the
claimant and caused her fractured injury. The accident happened on
13.11.2013. The father of the claimant had lodged the complaint on
10.12.2013. The police on investigation found that the accident has
occurred purely due to the negligence of the claimant who drove her vehicle
without driving license. She tried to cross the central Median, where there
was a barricade. Therefore, after investigation, the police has filed closure
report against the Bajaj Platinum rider as mistake of fact. Besides, for
driving motor cycle without valid license, the claimant has paid a fine of
Rs.500/-.
4. While the facts being so, the Tribunal has observed that had the
two wheeler rider of the Bajaj Platinum noticed the claimant standing at the
central median with her motor cycle, he could have avoided the accident and
therefore, attributed 75% negligence on the part of the Bajaj Platinum motor
cycle rider and 25% on the claimant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
5.This Court fails to understand when a clear case of traffic violation
and driving a motor cycle without license been proved, the Tribunal had
said the negligence to drive a motor vehicle without license and attempted
to cross the central median, where barricade is placed indicating that
nobody should cross, will only amount to 25% negligence and the road user
who meticulously followed the traffic Rule and expect that no one will cross
the central median when there is a barricade, is 75% negligent. It is a clear
case of improper appreciation of evidence and therefore, liable to be
interfered.
6.When the claimant herself in the evidence admitted that she had no
driving license and she tried to cross the central median, where there was a
barricade and she paid fine for driving vehicle without license, this Court
finds that there is no negligence on the part of the first respondent therein
and the Insurance Company has no liability to indemnify the first
respondent and pay compensation to the claimant. The belated F.I.R. after
27 days of the accident, alleging negligence on the part of the first
respondent has been found to be fault and fabricated for the purpose of
claiming compensation. The final report of the police after due
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
investigation has been marked as Ex.R1. The Tribunal has totally neglected
to appreciate the said evidence.
7.In the light of the above fact, this Court finds that the award of the
Tribunal is liable to be set aside and accordingly, set aside. As a result, the
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed.
8.Learned counsel for the appellant says that pursuant to the
condition order passed by this Court, the appellant has deposited 50% in the
M.C.O.P. Account. If it is so, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the
same on appropriate petition. No costs. The connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
03.03.2021
Speaking/Non Speaking
Index :Yes/No
vri
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
VRI
To
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
(Additional District Judge), Namakkal.
CMA NO.1412 of 2017
03.03.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
