Madras High Court
Mohammed Appas vs Muthuraj on 26 April, 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 26.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
C.M.A(MD)No.36 of 2022
Mohammed Appas :Appellant/Petitioner
.vs.
1.Muthuraj
2.The Branch Manager,
The New India Assurance Company Limited,
No.107/30-A,Main Road,
Servaipettai,
Salem.
3.Mohammed Ansari
4.The Branch Manager,
United India Insurance Company Limited,
No.54-A, Mathili Nivas,
Palani Road, Dindigul. :Respondents/Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 178 of the
Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment and decree made in
M.C.O.P.No.54 of 2014, dated 20.11.2020, on the file of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional Sub-Judge, Pudukkottai.
For Appellant :Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
For Respondent-1 :Mr.N.Ananda Kumar
For Respondent-2 :Mr.R.Suresh Kumar
For Respondent-4 :Mr.J.S.Murali
JUDGMENT
*********
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the
judgment and decree made in M.C.O.P.No.54 of 2014, dated
20.11.2020, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum -
Additional Sub-Judge, Pudukkottai.
2.The claim Petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.54 of 2014 before the
Claims Tribunal, Pudukkottai had filed the claim petition claiming
compensation for the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident
on 29.12.2013. The claim Petitioner both in his claim Petition as well
as in his evidence as P.W.1, would state that while he was
returning from Chennai on 29.12.2013, he was travelling in the
vehicle bearing Registration Number TN 22 BY 3346 owned by the
third respondent, which is insured with the fouth respondent and
he along with his other friends were travelling in the third
respondent vehicle and the driver of the third respondent vehicle
suddenly applied brake and at that point of time, the four wheeler/
lorry bearing Registration No.TN 46 P 8925 came from the behind
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
in a rash and negligent manner, driven by the driver of the first
respondent, which is insured with the second respondent vehicle
dashed against the third respondent vehicle from the behind and in
that process, the claim petitioner travelling in the third respondent
vehilcle thrown out and sustained low Jaw injury and sustained
other injuries. Subsequently, an FIR was filed in Crime No.1310 of
2013, before the Madurantagam Police Station, which is marked as
Ex.P1. Since the Claim Petitioner is injured, he is treated as an
occurrence witness. He has filed Ex.P1-FIR copy. The Disability
Certificate is marked as Ex.C1. The driver of the first respondent
and third respondent were not examined before the Tribunal.
Considering the evidence of P.W.1-injured witness coupled with the
documentary evidence marked under Ex.P1-First Information
Report, wherein, the First Information Report was registered as
against the driver of the first respodnent vehicle, the Tribunal has
found that since the first respondent has not produced any
evidence to counter or rebut the oral evidence of the injured P.W.1
and in the absence of anything elicited in the cross-examination of
P.W.1, has come to the conclusion that the evidence of P.W.1 is
acceptable and believed the same and held that the accident has
taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the first respondent.
3.After perusing the evidence of P.W.1 and Ex.P1-First
Information Report, I find that because of the first respondent's
driver, which is insured with the second respondent/Insurance
Company and since the policy copy was not produced before the
Tribunal, the Tribunal has exonerated the second
respondent/Insurance Company and hence, challenging the said
finding of exoneration of the second respondent, the claim
petitioner has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
4.Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned
counsel for the respondents 1,2 and 4 and perused the materials
placed before this Court.
5.The second respondent/Insurance Company has filed an
additional typed-set enclosing the Cover Note as well as the
insurance policy issued by the insurer of the vehicle of the first
respondent. As per the policy, the vehicle is insured with the
second respondent. The learned counsel for the second respondent
Insurance Company would contend that the injured has travelled in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the vehicle as a gratutious passenger and hence, the negligence has
also to be fixed upon him. Furthermore, due to the sudden applying
of the brake by the driver of the third respondent without following
the traffic rules, he has also contributed to the negligence.
Admittedly, the driver of the first respondent was not examined and
hence I do not take the said submission of the learned counsel for
the appellant for consideration, besides, the evidence of P.W.1 is
duly corroborated by documentary evidence Ex.P1-First Information
Report and in the absence of any positive evidence, mere argument
cannot be placed or to be substituted as an evidence. Accordingly,
the contention of the second respondent-Insurance Company
stands negatived. In view of the specific finding by the Tribunal
which is upheld by this Court that the driver of the first respondent
is negligent, which is insured with the second respondent/Insurance
Company and the policy is in current as per the additional typed-set
filed, I hold that both the respondents 2 and 4/Insurance
Companies are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to
the claimant.
6.Accordingly the award passed by the Tribunal is hereby
modified and the exoneration of the second respondent/Insurance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Company is set aside and the respondents 2 and 4/Insurance
Companies are held to be jointly and severally liable to pay
compensation to the claimant. Since the quantum of compensation
appears to be just and fair, except the modification of holding that
the respondents 2 and 4/Insurance companies are jointly and
severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant, the award
amount, as ordered by the Tribunal, is kept intact.The respondents
2 and 4/Insurance Companies are directed to jointly and severally
pay the award amount, as ordered by the Tribunal, with accrued
interest and costs to the credit of claim petition, 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 claimant is permitted to withdraw the amount so
deposited, less the award amount, if any, already withdrawn, by
filing necessary application before the Tribunal. The Registry is
directed to refund the excess Court fee,if any, for which, the claim
Petitioner is entitled to.
7.The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed to the
extent as indicated above. No costs.
26.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
vsn
To
1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum
-Additional Sub-Judge,
Pudukkottai.
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.36 of 2022
26.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
