Madras High Court
Krishnaveni vs A.S.Karthikeyan on 8 April, 2022
C.M.A.Nos.441 and 442 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
C.M.A.Nos.441 and 442 of 2020
1.Krishnaveni
2.Minor S.K.Kannan
[Minor represented by his Next friend / Guardian/
Mother Krishnaveni] ... Appellants 1 and 2
in C.M.A.No.441 of 2020
3.Saroja ... 3rd Appellant in
C.M.A.No.442 of 2020
Vs
1.A.S.Karthikeyan
2.M/s.National Insurance Company Ltd.,
Divisional Office,
73, Perundurai Road,
Erode-11. ... Respondents in both the Appeals
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.441 and 442 of 2020
COMMON PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicle Act, against the decree and judgment dated 21.08.2019 made
in M.C.O.P.Nos.319 and 320 of 2017 respectively on the file of Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Special District Judge), Erode.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Varadha Kamaraj
For Respondents : Mr.N.B.Surekha [R.2]
R1 - Served - No appearance
COMMON JUDGEMENT
The legal representatives of the rider and the pillion rider of a
motor cycle are the appellants before this Court. The two of them had
met with an accident which was an head on collision with the jeep
belonging to the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent.
2.The claim petition was dismissed on the ground that the rider of
the motor bike, namely, the deceased Saravanan was solely responsible
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.441 and 442 of 2020
for the accident. The Tribunal has proceeded to pick holes in the
evidence given by the 1st claimant who had adduced evidence as PW1
and the evidence of PW2 and PW3. M.C.O.P.No.319 of 2017 was
filed claiming compensation for the death of the minor son of the 1 st
respondent and the deceased Saravanan and the brother of the 2nd
respondent who was riding pillion. M.C.O.P.No.320 of 2017 is filed
by the wife, sons and mother respectively of the deceased Saravanan,
who was the rider of the bike. The Tribunal below has rejected both the
claims. Challenging the same, the claimants are before this Court.
3.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused
the papers.
4.The Tribunal has rejected the claims on the basis of the sketch
and the evidence given on the side of the respondent as RW1. The
Tribunal held that a perusal of the above would show that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.441 and 442 of 2020
negligence was on the part of the rider of the motor cycle, the said
Saravanan. The evidence of RW1, the driver of the Bolero is that the
deceased Saravanan tried to overtake the auto on the wrong side and
had hit the 1st respondent jeep head on. However, the jeep driver
namely RW1 is not the person who has given the FIR.
5.That apart, the sketch Ex.R.2 and Ex.R3 on which the learned
Judge placed reliance does not indicate the presence of the auto.
Therefore, it is clear that this is an accident which is head on collusion
and both the driver of the Jeep as well as the motor bike would be
responsible as it is their respective negligent driving that has caused the
accident.
In the result, these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are allowed and
the matter is remitted back to the learned Special District Judge, Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Erode, to consider the percentage of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.441 and 442 of 2020
contributory negligence and thereafter, fix the quantum of
compensation payable to the claimants. No costs. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
08.04.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking order / Non speaking order
mps
To
The Special District Judge,
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Erode.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.441 and 442 of 2020
P.T. ASHA, J,
mps
C.M.A.Nos.441 and 442 of 2020
08.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
