M/S.National Insurance Company ... vs K.Balasubramanian
2022 Latest Caselaw 7330 Mad

                                  BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                 DATED: 07.04.2022

                                                         CORAM:

                              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN

                                             C.M.A(MD)No.1008 of 2014
                                                       and
                                                M.P(MD)No.2 of 2014

                     M/s.National Insurance Company Limited,
                     represented by its Divisional Manager,
                     North Veli Street,
                     Madurai.                            :Appellant/Second Respondent

                                                 .vs.

                     1.K.Balasubramanian                     :Respondent/Petitioner

                     2.S.Mohammed Ibrahim                    :Respondent/Ist Respondent

                     3.S.Sivagamasundari                     :Respondent/Respondent-3

                     4.M/s.Reliance General Insurance Company Limited,
                       represented by its Divisional Manager,
                       Madurai.                         :Respondent/Respondent-4


                     PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
                     Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and decree made in
                     M.C.O.P.No.1068 of 2012, dated 02.01.2014, on the file of the
                     Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal/Third Additional District and Sessions
                     Judge(PCR),Madurai.


                                      For Appellant          :Mr.R.Srinivasan

                                      For Respondent-1       :Mr.G.Venugopal


                     1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                         For Respondent-2          :No appearance

                                         For Respondent-3          :Mr.K.K.Senthil
                                                                    (No appearance)

                                         For Respondent-4          :Mr.V.Sakthivel


                                                      JUDGMENT

*********

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the

judgment and decree made in M.C.O.P.No.1068 of 2012, dated

02.01.2014, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal/Third

Additional District and Sessions Judge(PCR),Madurai.

2.The second respondent before the Tribunal is the appllant

herein/Insurance Company. The appellant Insurance Company has

filed this appeal challenging the finding rendered by the Tribunal

fixing composite negligence at 75% : 25% between the drivers of

the respondent No.1 and respondent No.3 before the Tribunal.The

respondents 2 and 4 are the respective Insurance Companies of

the respective buses. According to the first respondent/claimant,

the accident took place on 7.4.2010. It is the case of the Petitioner

that the deceased Mayilsamy was riding a two-wheeler bearing

Registration No. TN 38 W 2628 on the left side of the road on the

four way track road from Dindigul to Madurai directions. Whileso,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis the first respondent's vehicle and third respondent's vehicle came

in the wrong way on the opposite direction one behind another. The

first Respondent's vehicle came infront of the third respondent's

vehicle. Both the vehicle was driven by its dirvers in a rash and

negligent manner and dashed against the two wheeler driven by the

deceased. Hence the deceased sustained fatal injuries and inspite of

the treatment, he succumbed to injuries on 13.4.2010. Due to the

injuries he succumbed and then died.

3.On the point of quantum of compensation, there is no

challenge. The sole point that was urged before this Court is that

the appellant Insurance Company vehicle is insured for the vehicle

having Registration No. TN 58 T-9867. To prove the manner of the

accident, P.W.2 was examined. He would set the criminal law in

motion by filing the complaint under Ex.P3. In the Criminal Court,

as per Ex.P7-charges were framed and it is against the third

respondent's vehicle and no charge has been framed under Section

304-A of IPC. In the final report, both of them are shown as

accused. Based upon the evidence of P.W.2, the Tribunal has come

to the conclusion that the accident has taken place due to the

composite negligence on the part of both the drivers of both the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis buses and they have dashed against the deceased who was

travelling in the two wheeler.

4.Admittedly, none of the drivers of both the buses are

examined by either of the owner, assumes significance. On perusal

of Ex.P3-FIR and the evidence of its author P.W.2, the Tribunal has

come to the conclusion that the vehicle insured with the appellant

Insurance Company dashed against the deceased at the first

instance and the other vehicle that was following that vehicle, also

dashed against that vehicle from the behind and made the accident

more grave. Accordingly, the Tribunal fixed the composite

negligence at 75% : 25% and hence, I find that the accident has

taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of

the vehicle insured with the appellant-Insurance Company which

made the accident more grave by subsequent dashing of the bus

following the first vehicle and hence, the ratio fixed by the Tribunal

cannot be said to be fault and hence, the contention of the learned

counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company cannot be

countenanced, besides, none of the drivers of the buses were

examined to let in contra evidence on the part of the second

respondent which is insured with the appellant-Insurance Company

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis and hence I find that the findings rendered by the Tribunal is just

and reasonable and the apportionment of negligence made by the

Tribunal does not warrant any interference by this Court.

5.Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands

dismissed. The appellant Insurance Company is directed to deposit

the their ratio of apportionment in the award amount, as ordered

by the Tribunal, with propotionate accrued interest and costs, less

the award amount, if any, already deposited, within a period of eight

weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such

deposit being made, the first respondent-claimant is permitted to

withdraw the amount so deposited, less the award amount, if any,

already withdrawn, by filing necessary application before the

Tribunal. No costs. Consquently, connected Misellaneous Petition is

dismissed.

07.04.2022

Index:Yes/No

Internet:Yes/No

vsn

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis To

1.The Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal/ Third Additional District and Sessions Judge(PCR), Madurai.

2.The Record Keeper, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN.,J.

vsn

JUDGMENT MADE IN C.M.A(MD)No.1008 of 2014 and M.P(MD)No.2 of 2014

07.04.2022

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis