Madras High Court
S.Prakash vs R.Senthil Kumar on 18 November, 2021
CMA(MD)No.654 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 18.11.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
CMA(MD)No.654 of 2019 &
CMP(MD)No.8043 of 2019
S.Prakash
... Appellant
vs.
1.R.Senthil Kumar
2.B.Saleem ... Respondents
PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to set aside the award and decree dated
21.03.2019 in MCOP.No.872 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal and Special Sub Court, Madurai.
For Appellant :Mr.A.John Vincent
For Respondents : Mrs.P.Yasmin Begum for R1
Mr.K.Kumaravel for R2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
CMA(MD)No.654 of 2019
JUDGMENT
The appellant/owner of the offending vehicle filed this appeal to
set aside the award and decree dated 21.03.2019 in MCOP.No.872 of
2015 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub
Court, Madurai, on the ground that already the vehicle was sold to a third
party before the accident.
2. On 13.01.2014, at about 20.30 hours, near Madurai Melur Road
out post, in front of Royal Plaza Building, an Indica Car bearing
registration No.TN 69 J 0195, belonging to the appellant, driven by the
second respondent/driver in a rash and negligent manner hit the first
respondent/claimant, as a result of which, he sustained multiple injuries
all over his body. Seeking Compensation for the injuries sustained by
him, he filed MCOP.No.872 of 2015 before the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Special Sub Court, Madurai.
3. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court,
Madurai after perusing the materials on record, fixed the liability on the
owner and driver of the vehicle, awarded a sum of Rs.2,69,000/- together
with interest at the rate of 7.5% to the first respondent/claimant and
directed the owner and driver of the offending vehicle to pay the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA(MD)No.654 of 2019
compensation jointly and severally. Questioning the liability fixed on
him, the owner of the offending vehicle has filed this appeal.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant produced Form
24 before this Court and submitted that even before the accident, the
appellant sold the Indica Car bearing Registration No.TN 69 J 0195 to a
third party and that the vehicle was insured with National Insurance
Company at the time of accident. Therefore, he submitted that the
appellant is not liable to pay compensation to the first
respondent/claimant.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/claimant
strongly objected the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant
and contended that the Form 24 submitted on the side of the appellant
clearly shows that the transfer of the vehicle was made on 07.02.2014 to
one Mohan, which is in total contradiction to the previous stand taken by
the appellant before the Tribunal and this Court, since earlier it was
stated that the vehicle was transferred to one T.Vellaipandi on
11.04.2011. The learned counsel would therefore submit that the
appellant has not approached this Court with clean hands and hence, this
appeal deserves dismissal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA(MD)No.654 of 2019
6. It is pertinent to mention here that the appellant has not filed the
Form 24 before the Tribunal. As pointed out by the learned counsel
appearing for the first respondent/claimant, the appellant had taken
contradictory stands then and now. Even according to Form 24, the date
of transfer of vehicle is 07.02.2014, which is after the accident that
occurred on 13.01.2014. Further, the appellant has not produced the
Insurance Policy copy before the Tribunal. A perusal of MVI Report
shows that Insurance Policy copy was not produced. However, now the
appellant takes a different stand and submits that the vehicle was insured
with National Insurance Company. Obviously, the appellant, who is the
owner of the offending vehicle contested the case before the Tribunal and
the Tribunal after hearing the parties, passed award against the
appellant/owner and second respondent/driver of the offending vehicle.
Suppose if the vehicle is insured, the appellant ought to produced the
copy before the Tribunal itself. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly fixed
the liability on the owner and driver of the vehicle. This Court finds no
reason to interfere with the same.
7. In the result,
(i) The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA(MD)No.654 of 2019
(ii) The orders passed by the Tribunal is upheld.
(iii) The appellant and the second respondent are directed to
deposit the compensation awarded by the Tribunal ie., Rs.2,69,000/-
jointly and severally together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum
(No interest is awarded for Future Medical Expenses ie. Rs.40,000/-)
from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit to the credit of
MCOP.No.872 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Special Sub Court, Madurai within a period of two weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(iv) On such deposit being made, the first respondent/claimant is at
liberty to withdraw the same after following due process of law.
18.11.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
mbi
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA(MD)No.654 of 2019
S.ANANTHI, J.
mbi
To
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Special Sub Court, Madurai.
CMA(MD)No.654 of 2019
18.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
