Madras High Court
The Manager vs A.Selvi on 1 April, 2022
CMA.No.3618 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
C.M.A.No.3618 of 2019
and
C.M.P.Nos.20853 of 2019 & 10032 of 2021
The Manager,
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
No.13-A, Nethaji Road,
Cuddalore – 607 001.
Now at,
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Motor Third Party Claims Hub,
No.35, 36 & 37, AR Plaza, 45 Feet Road,
Balaji Nagar, Puducherry – 605 011.
... Appellant
Vs
1.A.Selvi
2.A.Tamil Selvi
3.A.Venkatachalapathy
4.M.Pasupathy
5.Ravi Kumar ... Respondents
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.3618 of 2019
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 21.12.2017
passed in MACTOP.No.394 of 2013 on the file of the (II Additional District
Judge) MACT, Tindivanam.
For Appellant : Mr.P.Sankaranarayanan
For Respondents : Mr.R.Thirugnanam for R1 to R3.
R4 – Served
R5 – Not ready in notice
**********
JUDGMENT
The Insurance Company is before this Court challenging the
award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Additional District
Judge), Dindivanam on the ground that an award has been passed against
the respondents when the respondents have not been involved in the
accident and the claim appears to be a fake claim.
2. The following are the circumstances which has been set out by
the appellant/ Insurance Company in order to substantiate their contention.
The respondents 1 to 3 who are the claimants before the Motor Accident
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.3618 of 2019
Claims Tribunal had filed a petition seeking compensation for the death of
one Anandhan, father of the respondents 1 to 3 herein in a road accident on
11.07.2011. It is the contention of the respondents 1 to 3 / claimants that on
the ill-fated day their father was standing near Chithani bus stop on the
Chennai - Trichy GST Road. At that time, the vehicle belonging the 4th
respondent who was arrayed as the 3rd respondent before the Tribunal and
which was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed
against the said Anandhan who sustained multiple injures and had
succumbed to the injuries on 12.07.2011 at 4.00 hrs. The accident on
11.07.2011 is said to have taken place at 22.12 hrs.
3. It also appears that the driver-cum-owner of the vehicle one
Ravikumar was subsequently impleaded as the 3rd respondent by order in
I.A.No.26 of 2012. The respondents have filed identical counter on the
basis of the information given by the 3rd respondent who was the person
stated to have driven the vehicle of the 1st respondent on 11.07.2011. The
respondents have categorically denied the involvement of the vehicle of the
4th respondent in the accident. They had in their counter clearly stated that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.3618 of 2019
the narration regarding the accident was absolutely false and this is further
fortified by the fact that there is a delay in lodging of the FIR. The
respondents have gone to state that the entire sequence has been concocted
with the connivance of the police officials and done with the intention of
illegally collecting the public money.
4. The Tribunal below had not framed any issues as to whether the
accident had actually taken place despite the respondents taking out this
identical defence. However, the point for determination framed was
whether the accident had happened due to the rash and negligent driving of
the 3rd respondent vehicle, thereby showing that the Tribunal had already
arrived at a conclusion that the accident had taken place only as narrated by
the claimants viz., respondents 1 to 3 herein. The learned Judge proceeded
to hold that the driver of the 1st respondent vehicle was responsible for the
accident and held the appellant herein as the insurer is liable to pay the
compensation. The Tribunal has arrived at a quantum of compensation at
Rs.6,19,836/-. It is this award that is subject matter of challenge before this
Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.3618 of 2019
5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the
materials available on record.
6. The defence of the respondents was that the accident had not
taken place and the vehicle of the 1st respondent was not involved in the said
accident. Ravi Kumar, 3rd respondent has been examined as RW1. In his
evidence, he has stated that on the said date viz., 11.07.2011 he had taken
his vehicle TN-09-AZ-2229, which is the vehicle that has been shown in the
claim statement as the offending vehicle, for certain repairs as there was
problem with the clutch. After the repairs were done, he had come back to
his house around 10.10 pm through Vikravandi toll gate. Thereafter, on the
next day, at around 8.30 in the morning he was in the auto stand, the police
man had come to him and asked him to ferry him to the police station.
When he had reached the police station, they had informed him that his
vehicle had hit a person and therefore the documents of the vehicle were
required, to which RW1 had stated that he had returned home and had gone
to sleep and that he had not taken any passenger on the said date.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.3618 of 2019
Thereafter, when he had gone to the police station with his friends, he was
informed that they no longer require his vehicle and no action has been
taken against him. A perusal of the cross examination would clearly
indicate that no questions have been put to rebut the statement made by the
witness that his vehicle was in no way involved in the accident.
7. Further, PW2 who claims to be the eye witness has not lodged
the FIR. He in his cross examination has further admitted that the complaint
was given on the next day around 7.30 pm. Though PW2 would state that
the police had questioned him, there is no Section 163 Cr.P.C statement
produced on the side of the respondents 1 to 3. He has further deposed that
the van which had caused the accident remained in the spot till the 108
ambulance had come. It is rather strange that the witness had not
accompanied the injured Anandhan especially when it is the contention of
the witness that Anandhan had sustained grievous injures.
8. The 1st witness PW1 is the 3rd petitioner/ 3rd respondent herein.
Both PW1 and PW2 have not been able to depose as to the date on which
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.3618 of 2019
the accident had taken place as both have deposed that they did not
remember the date of accident. Further PW2 is not the person who has filed
the complaint. The person who adduced the evidence is not the person who
had given the complaint. The evidence of PW1 and PW2 clearly shows that
the accident itself may be a concocted one for the following reasons:
1. The person who witnessed the accident and
deposed as PW2 does not file the FIR.
2. He does not accompany the injured who had
travelled in the ambulance. This statement has not been
corroborated by PW1.
3. The daughter who had filed the FIR has not
entered the box.
4. The respondents have clearly stated that the
vehicle that is claimed to be involved in the accident was
nowhere near the scene of accident and this evidence has not
been controverted by the claimants.
5. RW2 the police official has deposed that no action
has been taken against the driver of the 1st respondent's vehicle.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.3618 of 2019
9. In the FIR the complainant had stated that PW2 had also
travelled in the ambulance and she had also contended that the offending
vehicle remained at the site and had suddenly driven away when she had
reached the spot. This statement is not supported by PW2 in his chief or
cross examination. Therefore, despite such bristling contradictions in the
oral evidence of the parties, the Tribunal has simply relied upon the claim
petition and arrived at the conclusion that the accident has occurred.
10. Since this Court has held that the vehicle was not involved in
the accident by taking into account the evidence of RW1 and RW2 and the
discrepancy in the evidence of PW2 and the FIR, this Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal has to be allowed and the award has to be set aside. Further, as this
Court has come to a conclusion that the vehicle in question was not
involved in the accident, there is no necessity to discuss about the merits or
otherwise of the compensation that has been granted.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.3618 of 2019
11. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and
the judgment and decree dated 21.12.2017 made in MACTOP.No.394 of
2013 on the file of the (II Additional District Judge) MACT, Tindivanam is
set aside. No costs. Consequently, the connected Civil Miscellaneous
Petitions are closed.
01.04.2022
Index: Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-Speaking order
dsa
To
The II Additional District Judge,
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Tindivanam.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.3618 of 2019
P.T.ASHA, J.
dsa
CMA No.3618 of 2019
01.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
