Madras High Court
M.Ezhilarasan vs A.Paramanantham on 10 March, 2022
C.M.A.No.436 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
C.M.A.No.436 of 2021
M.Ezhilarasan ... Appellant
vs.
1.A.Paramanantham
2.The Manager,
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Motor Third Party Claim Office,
South India Co-operative Building,
IIIrd Floor, No.38, Anna Salai,
Chennai-2.
3.M.A.Jhon Paul,
4. The Divisional Manager,
National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Motor Third Party Claim Office,
Post Box No.157, No.19, Officers Line,
1st Floor, (opp) Lakshmi Theatre,
Vellore. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Decree and Judgment dated
31.01.2020 made in M.C.O.P.No.120 of 2006 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional Subordinate Judge, Kanchipuram.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.436 of 2021
For Appellant : Mr.C.Prabakaran
For Respondents :Mrs.R.Rathna Thara [R2]
Mr.J.Michael Visuvasam [R4]
R1 – Served – No Appearance
R3 – Not ready in notice
JUDGMENT
Challenging the dismissal order passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Additional Subordinate Judge, Kanchipuram in
M.C.O.P.No.120 of 2006, the claimant is the appellant before this Court.
2. The claim has been rejected on the ground that the claimant alone
is responsible for the accident. Considering the limited scope, I do not
intend to travel into intricate details of the case and it would be sufficient to
extract the manner in which the accident had occurred.
3. The claimant / appellant had stated that when he was travelling in
his Toyota Qualis Car, on the Kallakurichi – Villuppuram Highway road,
the 1st respondent lorry which was driven by its driver in a rash and
negligent manner and proceeding in a zig-zag manner on the road had
suddenly applied break, as a result of which, the appellant's car dashed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.436 of 2021
against the lorry. Apart from the claimant, other passenger had sustained
injury.
4. The Tribunal below has taken note of the First Information Report
which has been marked as Ex.P1 and the Charge Sheet Ex.R1, wherein, the
negligence has been squarely fixed only on the driver of the 3 rd respondent's
vehicle, namely, the claimant herein. He has not been able to let in any
other evidence to rebut the above contention. In fact, PW1 in his evidence
cross-examination has made the following admission:
''nyhL Vw;wpf;bfhz;L nlhanlh tz;oia ehd; Xl;o te;njd;
vd;Wk; tz;oapd; gjpt[ vz; o/vz;/27 tp 0084 gpd;dhy; te;j lhu!;
tz;o thfdj;ij Ke;jp brd;W thfdj;jpd; Kd;dhy; gpnuf; nghl;L
epd;wJ. mt;thW vdJ kDtpYk; gpukhz thf;FK:yj;jpYk; bjhptpj;J
cs;nsd;/ ehd; kDtpYk; gpukhz thf;FK:yj;jpYk; Kd;dhy; brd;w
thfdk; tiye;J tiye;J brd;W jpObud gpnuf; nghl;L epd;wjhy;
vjph;ghuhjtpjkhf vd; thfdk; me;j yhhpapd; gpd; nkhjpajhf ehd;
brhy;ypapUe;jhy; mJ jtW/''
5. This statement would clearly indicate that the petitioner has been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.436 of 2021
driving in an equal speed without following the basic rule of maintaining a
distance between two vehicles. If he had been vigilant in driving, the
accident would not have occurred. Therefore, this Court does not find any
reason to interfere with the Order passed by the learned Additional
Subordinate Judge, Kanchipuram.
6. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the
Decree and Judgment dated 31.01.2020 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal / Additional Subordinate Judge, Kanchipuram in
M.C.O.P.No.120 of 2006, is confirmed. No costs.
10.03.2022
Index : Yes/No
Speaking / Non-speaking order
ssn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.436 of 2021
To
1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal /
Additional Subordinate Judge,
Kanchipuram.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.436 of 2021
P.T.ASHA, J.,
ssn
C.M.A.No.436 of 2021
10.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
