Madras High Court
N.Balakrishnan vs Jeyamani on 20 January, 2022
C.M.A.(MD)No.757 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 20.01.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
C.M.A.(MD)No.757 of 2018
N.Balakrishnan ... Appellant/Respondent No.1
Vs.
1.Jeyamani
2.Ravi Pravi ...Respondents No.1 & 2/Claimants
3.The Manager,
Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co Ltd.,
Bus Plaza, 3rd Floor,
No.5G, Lawsons Road,
Cantonment,
Trichy. .. Respondent No.3/Respondents No.2
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicle Act, against the judgment and decree dated 22.03.2018 passed in
M.C.O.P.No.130 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Principal District Court), Karur.
For Appellant : Mr.V. Illanchezian
For R1 & R2 : Mr.K.Suresh Kumar
For R3 : Mr.Jerin Mathew
for Mr.M.E.Ilango
JUDGMENT
The appellant, who is the owner-cum-driver of the Motor Cycle
Yamaha RX 100 bearing Registration No. TN-47-B-6656, has filed the
present appeal. The appellant is the first respondent in M.C.O.P.No.130 of
2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District
Court), Karur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.757 of 2018
2. Before the Tribunal, the respondents 1 and 2/claimants have filed the
claim petition under Sections 166, 140 and 141 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 and R.3(1) of Tamilnadu Motor Accident Tribunal Rules, 1989 seeking
compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- for the death of one Senthilkumar, in a road
accident, which occurred on 24.07.2013.
3. It is a case of fatal accident, which took place on 24.07.2013 at
about 10.45 p.m. According to the respondents 1 and 2/claimants, when the
deceased Senthilkumar was riding in a motorcycle bearing Registration
No.TN-47-T-7972, a Yamaha bearing Registration No. TN-47-B-6656 came
in a rash and negligent manner and tried to overtook the vehicle and suddenly
the driver of the Yamaha vehicle turned on the right side and dashed the
vehicle of the deceased, due to which, the said Senthilkumar fell down and
sustained head injury. He has admitted in Kovai Medical Centre Hospital in
Coimbatore and he succumbed to injuries on 25.07.2013.
4. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants, two witnesses were
examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and marked ten documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P10.
On the side of the respondents therein, three witnesses were examined as
R.W.1 to R.W.3 and two documents were marked as Ex.R.1 and Ex.R,2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.757 of 2018
5.The Tribunal, after considering the pleadings, oral and documentary
evidences and the arguments of the counsels for the claimants and the
respondents therein, directed the owner-cum-driver of the Motor Cycle
Yamaha RX 100 bearing Registration No. TN-47-B-6656/the first respondent
therein/the appellant herein, to pay a sum of Rs.16,39,944/- as compensation
with 7.5 % interest. Against which, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that
the vehicle driven by the deceased dashed the Yamaha and based on that, the
Judicial Magistrate acquitted the appellant. But in the First Information
Report, it is wrongly stated only the Yamaha vehicle came in rash and
negligent manner overtook the vehicle of the deceased and suddenly turned
right side and dashed with the vehicle of the deceased. According to the
appellant, P.W.2 is no way connected to the occurrence and he has deposed
on his presumption and assumption and the Tribunal, without clarifying the
judgment of the criminal court coupled with the deposition of P.W.2, has
passed the award and therefore, the same may be set aside.
6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials
available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.757 of 2018
7. The Motor Vehicle Inspector's report of the vehicle disclosed that
there was damage on the front side of the vehicle. One eye witness was
examined as P.W.2 before the Tribunal. He also deposed that only the
appellant drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed with
the deceased's vehicle. No other contra evidence was given by the appellant.
Acquittal in criminal case would not bind the Tribunal.
8. On perusing the First Information Report and evidence of P.W.2
before the Tribunal, it is seen that the only Yamaha vehicle is responsible for
the accident. So the Tribunal has rightly fixed liability on the appellant. This
Court has found no valid reason to interfere with the judgment and decree of
the tribunal. Accordingly, the judgment and decree dated 22.03.2018 passed
in M.C.O.P.No.130 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Principal District Court), Karur, is confirmed.
9. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Index : Yes/No 20.01.2022
Internet : Yes/No
CM
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.757 of 2018
Note:In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web
copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the
copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the Advocate/litigant concerned.
To
1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Court), Karur.
2. The Record Keeper,
V.R. Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.757 of 2018
S. ANANTHI, J.
CM
Judgment made in
C.M.A.(MD)No.757 of 2018
20.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
