Madras High Court
[email protected] Raji vs Bathmani on 6 September, 2022
C.M.A.No.1404 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
C.M.A.No.1404 of 2022
and C.M.P.No.11165 of 2022
[email protected] Raji ... Appellant
vs.
1.Bathmani
2.Kalagarasan
3.Ezhil ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Order dated 7.3.2018 made in O.P.No.107 of
2011 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal of Harur in the Court of
Subordinate Judge of Harur.
For Appellant : Mr.G.Prabhakar
For Respondent-1 : Died
For Respondents : Mr.M.Sivakumar
2 and 3
JUDGMENT
Challenging the Award passed in M.C.O.P.No.107 of 2011 by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Subordinate Judge) Harur, the respondent
before the Tribunal is before this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1404 of 2022
2. The parties are referred to in the same ranking as before the
Tribunal.
3. The petitioners had filed the above claim petition seeking
compensation of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of one Kamalesan in a
road accident on 10.07.2011. The petitioners would contend that on the said
date, the deceased Kamalesan was proceeding for work in his T.V.S. Super
XL bearing Registration No.TN-29-H-4501 on the Harur to Morappur Road.
When the vehicle came near the Kazhinar bus stop, another T.V.S.Super XL
bearing Registration No.TN-29-M-9115 was coming in the opposite direction
driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the
vehicle, in which, the Kamalesan was travelling. By reason of this impact, he
was thrown out of the vehicle and sustained fatal injuries. The petitioners
would submit that the accident had occurred only on account of the
negligence of the rider of the vehicle, bearing Registration No.TN 29-M-
9115, which was owned and driven by the respondent.
3. The respondent had filed a counter inter-alia contending that it
was the said Kamalesan, who had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1404 of 2022
manner and who had crossed over the road and hit the TVS XL in which, the
respondent was travelling. The respondent would submit that on account of
the impact, not only Kamalesan, but the pillion rider, Anbu had also
sustained injuries as also the respondent. The respondent was admitted for 3
days and on 16.07.2011, he had lodged an F.I.R.
4. The Tribunal, on considering the evidence on record, held that
the drivers of both the vehicles, namely, the deceased Kamalesan as well as
the respondent were equally responsible for the accident and the negligence
was equally apportioned among the two. Thereafter, the Tribunal has fixed a
notional income of Rs.6,500/- and after adding future prospects of 10% and
deducting 1/3 towards the personal expenses and adopting a multiplier of 11
held that the petitioners were entitled to a sum of Rs.6,29,296/- under the
head of loss of dependency. Challenging the said Award, the respondent is
before this Court.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned
counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 and perused the materials available on
record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1404 of 2022
6. Both the vehicles did not possess an insurance cover. The
respondent would contend that the accident had occurred only on account of
the negligence of Kamalesan and that the respondent had nothing to do with
the same. Therefore, the Tribunal has clearly erred in fastening 50% of the
negligence on the respondent. The learned counsel for the appellant /
respondent would refer to the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 in support of his
contention that the accident had occurred on account of the negligence of the
deceased Kamalesan. P.W.2 has been examined as an eye witness.
However, he has not chosen to give the complaint to the police as soon as he
had witnessed the accident. In fact, the F.I.R has been lodged 6 days after the
accident and there is no explanation for the same. In fact, after 6 days, it is
only the respondent, who has lodged the complaint. However, a perusal of
the F.I.R would clearly show that both the drivers are equally responsible, as
it was a head on collusion, which has taken place more or less in the center
of the road. It is also seen that the deceased Kamalesan and the respondent
do not possess a driving licence at the time of the accident.
7. Therefore, considering the scene of the accident and also taking
into account the fact that the respondent, who was examined as R.W1, did
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1404 of 2022
not have a valid driving licence, I see no reason to interfere with the Award
with reference to fastening of the liability. Coming to the next issue with
reference to the quantum, a perusal of the Award would show that a very
reasonable compensation was awarded under the various heads. On this
count also, it is not necessary to interfere with the Award of the Tribunal.
Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
06.09.2022
Index : Yes / No
Speaking Order : Yes / No
srn
To
1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Subordinate Judge,
Harur.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1404 of 2022
P.T.ASHA, J.,
srn
C.M.A.No.1404 of 2022
and C.M.P.No.11165 of 2022
06.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
