Madras High Court
National Insurance Company ... vs Ramadevi on 23 November, 2021
C.M.A.No.740 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 23.11.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
C.M.A.No.740 of 2020
and
C.M.P.No.4550 of 2020
National Insurance Company Limited
No.63, Rasi Plaza
West Pradhakshinam Road
Karur – 639 002.
Divisional Office – 1
No.930, Sathyamangalam Road
Gandhipuram
Coimbatore – 641 012. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Ramadevi
2.K.R.Ashwin
3.K.R.Aravind
(Erstwhile minor)
(Declared as major as per orders in I.A.No.1185 of 2017 dated 06.04.2017)
Devajanaki (died)
4.N.Nandhagopal
5.S.Palaniswamy ... Respondents
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.740 of 2020
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act 1988, against the judgment and decree passed in
M.A.C.T.O.P.No.1818 of 2013 dated 21.12.2017 on the file of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special Subordinate Court, Coimbatore.
For Appellant : Ms.N.B.Sureka
For Respondents : Mrs.Ramya V.Rao
For RR1 to 3
R4 – Notice sent – abated
R5 – Notice Servied – No appearance
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by V.SIVAGNANAM, J.]
This appeal arises out of the order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Special Subordinate Court, Coimbatore, in MCOP.No.1818 of 2013,
dated 21.12.2017.
2.For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their ranking in
the claim petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.740 of 2020
3.The case of the claimants is that on 27.03.2013, at about 12.50 p.m., the
deceased was riding his car bearing Registration No.TN 38 L 4839 on Pollachi to
Coimbatore main road from south to north direction, by keeping his left side of
the road, i.e., western side of the road at a moderate speed near Vaaikkaalmedu,
Sandeagoundanpalayam. At that time, a bus bearing Registration No.TN 47 AC
5286 driven by the 1st respondent came in the opposite direction, i.e., from north
to south, in a rash and negligent manner by keeping its extreme right side on the
said road, without caring the vehicle of the deceased, dashed against it. Due to
the accident the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. Alleging
that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1 st
respondent, the claimants laid a petition claiming compensation of
Rs.1,00,00,000/- before the Tribunal.
4.Resisting the claim, the appellant Insurance Company filed their counter
disputing the manner of accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased and
its liability to pay the compensation. It was also contended that the compensation
claimed by the claimants is excessive.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.740 of 2020
5. To substantiate the case, on the side of the claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were
examined and Exs.P.1 to 14 were marked. On the side of the respondents, R.Ws.1
and 2 were examined and Exs.R.1 to 3 were marked.
6.The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence held
that the 1st respondent/driver of the Bus was responsible for the accident and
awarded compensation of Rs.68,95,728/- to the claimants under the following
heads:-
Heads Rs.
Compensation for loss of dependency 68,25,728/-
Loss of consortium 20,000/-
Love and affection 20,000/-
Funeral expenses 25,000/-
Loss of estate 5,000/-
Total 68,95,728/-
7.Assailing the award passed by the Tribunal, the appellant Insurance
Company has filed the present appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.740 of 2020
8.The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the accident had
happened due to the negligence on the part of the deceased. The Tribunal failed to
consider the evidence of the driver of the bus; Rough Sketch, which was marked
as Ex.R1 and the charge sheet filed by the police under Ex.R2, as these evidence
and documents are played vital role in deciding the matter. Initially, FIR was
registered as against the 1st respondent, however, after completion of investigation
the police filed the charge sheet as against the deceased alone. Since he died,
charges as against him got abated. Therefore, fixing negligence on the part of the
1st respondent is unsustainable and inter-alia directing the 2nd respondent as well
as the 3rd respondent/Insurance company jointly and severally to pay the
compensation cannot be countenanced.
9.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants submit that
the Tribunal has passed a well-reasoned award and the same does not require any
interference by this Court. Further, it is stated that the occurrence was witnessed
by P.W.2-Thangaraj, who lodged the complaint against the driver of the Bus/1st
respondent and deposed before the Tribunal about the manner of accident. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.740 of 2020
owner of the bus, being an influential person, influenced the eye witness-P.W.2 as
well as the police and prepared the Rough Sketch-Ex.R1 in their favour. Thereby
found guilty upon the deceased and further action has been dropped. Therefore,
prayed to dismiss this appeal.
10.This Court carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel
for the appellant Insurance Company and the learned counsel appearing for the
claimants and perused the materials available on record.
11. A perusal of Rough Sketch-Ex.R.1, which exposes the fact that the Bus
came from north to south and the deceased drove the Car from south to north. It
clearly shows that the deceased drove the car on the wrong side and Rough Sketch
clearly lights the tyre mark of the Bus. It further reflects that on seeing the car,
the driver of the bus applied sudden brake to avoid the accident, however, the
deceased drove the car very rashly and hit against bus, which is coming on the
opposite direction and caused the accident. In such circumstances, we are of the
opinion that the entire negligence cannot be fixed on the driver of the bus, hence,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.740 of 2020
negligence is fixed at the ratio of 50 : 50.
12.Thus, the negligence on the part of the deceased is fixed at 50% and the
driver of the bus also equally contributed, i.e., 50%. With regard to quantum, the
Tribunal on proper appreciation of evidence held that the claimants are entitled for
Rs.68,95,728/-. It is to be noted that there is no much controversy in so far as
quantum awarded by the Tribunal. Since the deceased was fixed with 50%
negligence, the amount is reduced from Rs.68,95,728/- to Rs.34,47,864/-.
13.In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. The
appellant/Insurance Company and the 2nd respondent/owner of the bus jointly and
severally directed to deposit the modified award amount of Rs.34,47,864/- with
accrued interest and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a
period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such
deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the award amount, less the
amount already withdrawn, if any, together with proportionate interest and costs.
The apportionment of shares as fixed by the Tribunal to the claimants is hereby
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.740 of 2020
confirmed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[M.K.K.S.,J.] [V.S.G.,J.]
23.11.2021
Intex : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Jer
To
1.Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
Special Subordinate Court, Coimbatore.
2.V.R.Section,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.740 of 2020
K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.
and
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
Jer
C.M.A.No.740 of 2020
and
C.M.P.No.4550 of 2020
23.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
