Madras High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Thoppai on 11 November, 2021
C.M.A.No.457 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11.11.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
C.M.A.No.457 of 2014
and
M.P.No.1 of 2014
The Divisional Manager,
United India Insurance Company Limited,
Motor Third Party Claim Office,
No.66-68, Gandhi Road,
Kancheepuram. .. Appellant
Vs.
1.Thoppai
2.Selvakumar @ Sridhar
3.Devi @ Susila
4.A.M.Munusamy Mudaliar .. Respondents
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated
13.04.2010 made in M.C.O.P.No.564 of 2008 on the file of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Kancheepuram.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Arun Kumar
For RR 1 to 3 : Mr.S.Sangaralingam
For R4 : Left
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.457 of 2014
JUDGMENT
(The matter is heard through “Video Conferencing/Hybrid mode”.)
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed to set aside the award
dated 13.04.2010 made in M.C.O.P.No.564 of 2008 on the file of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Kancheepuram.
2.The appellant is the 2nd respondent in M.C.O.P.No.564 of 2008 on
the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Kancheepuram.
The respondents 1 to 3 filed the said claim petition claiming a sum of
Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one Padma @ Padmavathy,
who died in the accident that took place on 30.11.2007.
3.According to respondents 1 to 3, while the said Padma @
Padmavathy was travelling in Government Bus bearing Registration No.
TN 32 N 2034 along with others, the driver of the Bharathi Roadways bus
bearing Registration No.AP 03 W 7575 belonging to 4th respondent, drove the
same in a rash and negligent manner, dashed on the Government Bus and
caused the accident. In the said accident, the said Padma @ Padmavathy
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.457 of 2014
sustained grievous injuries and subsequently died. Therefore, the respondents
1 to 3, being the husband, son and daughter of the deceased Padma @
Padmavathy filed the above said claim petition claiming a sum of
Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation against the 4th respondent and appellant-
Insurance Company, being the owner and insurer of the Bharathi Roadways
bus respectively.
4.The 4th respondent-owner of the Bharathi Roadways bus remained
exparte before the Tribunal.
5.The appellant-Insurance Company filed counter statement and denied
all the averments made by the respondents 1 to 3. The appellant stated that
the accident did not occur due to the negligence on the part of the driver of
the Bharathi Roadways bus belonging to 4th respondent. The accident
occurred due to head on collision of two buses, both the drivers died on the
spot and hence, both the drivers are responsible for the accident and prayed
for dismissal of the claim petition.
6.Before the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent examined himself as P.W.1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.457 of 2014
and marked four documents as Exs.P1 to P4. On behalf of the appellant, one
T.N.Gopalan was examined as R.W.1 and no document was marked.
7.The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary
evidence and also the connected claim petitions filed claiming compensation
for the injuries sustained and death caused in the very same accident, held
that accident has occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the
driver of the Bharathi Roadways bus belonging to 4th respondent and directed
the appellant-Insurance Company, being the insurer of the Bharathi
Roadways bus to pay a sum of Rs.4,01,000/- as compensation to the
respondents 1 to 3.
8.Challenging the said award dated 13.04.2010 made in
M.C.O.P.No.564 of 2008, the appellant has come out with the present appeal.
9.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company
reiterated the averments in the counter statement and further contended that
the Tribunal relying on the rough sketch, erroneously held that accident has
occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Bharathi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.457 of 2014
Roadways bus belonging to 4th respondent. The rough sketch was not marked
through the author of the document and it is not an authenticated document.
The accident is head on collision and the Tribunal ought to have fixed
negligence on drivers of both the buses and prayed for allowing the civil
miscellaneous appeal.
10.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 made
submissions in support of the award of the Tribunal and prayed for dismissal
of the civil miscellaneous appeal.
11.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the
learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and perused the entire
materials on record.
12.From the materials available on record, it is seen that it is the case
of the respondents 1 to 3 that due to rash and negligent driving by the driver
of Bharathi Roadways bus belonging to 4th respondent, the accident has
occurred and in the accident, the said Padma @ Padmavathy sustained
grievous injuries and died. To substantiate their case, they examined the 2 nd
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.457 of 2014
respondent as P.W.1 and marked four documents as Exs.P1 to P4. From the
award of the Tribunal, it is seen that more than 50 claim petitions were filed
claiming compensation for the death and injuries caused in the very same
accident. In the connected claim petitions, rough sketch was marked. All the
claim petitions were not heard jointly, but they were heard simultaneously. In
view of the same, the Tribunal considered the documents marked in the
connected claim petitions, especially the rough sketch filed by the claimants.
From the rough sketch, it is seen that the accident has occurred on the
western side of north – south road. The Bharathi Roadways bus was going
from north to south, while the Government bus was coming from south to
north. The Bharathi Roadways bus was going on the eastern side and the
Government bus was coming on the western side. The Bharathi Roadways
bus, which was going from north to south, ought to have traveled only on the
eastern side. The accident has occurred on the extreme western side of the
road. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral evidence, rough sketch and
place of accident, held that accident has occurred only due to rash and
negligent driving by the driver of the Bharathi Roadways bus belonging to 4th
respondent. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that
the Tribunal ought not to have relied on the rough sketch. From the materials
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.457 of 2014
on record, it is seen that the appellant has not let in any evidence to show that
the accident has not occurred on the western side of the road. This Court by
the judgment dated 07.09.2018 in C.M.A.Nos.1400 to 1403 of 2011 filed by
the appellant herein against the award passed in connected claim petitions
arising out of the same accident, considered the materials placed before the
Tribunal and held that accident has occurred only due to rash and negligent
driving by the driver of Bharathi Roadways bus belonging to 4th respondent.
The appellant has not challenged the said judgment passed by this Court. In
view of the above materials, the award of the Tribunal with regard to
negligence is confirmed.
13.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. The sum
of Rs.4,01,000/- awarded by the Tribunal as compensation to the respondents
1 to 3, along with interest and costs is confirmed. The appellant-Insurance
Company is directed to deposit the award amount along with interest and
costs, less the amout if any already deposited, within a period of six weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment to the credit of
M.C.O.P.No.564 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Sub Court, Kancheepuram. On such deposit, the respondents 1 to 3 are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.457 of 2014
permitted to withdraw their respective share of the award amount as per the
ratio of apportionment fixed by the Tribunal along with proportionate interest
and costs after adjusting the amount, if any already withdrawn, by filing
necessary applications before the Tribunal. Consequently, the connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
11.11.2021
krk
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.457 of 2014
To
1.The Subordinate Judge,
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Kancheepuram.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court,
Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.457 of 2014
V.M.VELUMANI, J.
krk
C.M.A.No.457 of 2014
11.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
