Madras High Court
Geetha vs R.Devathal on 15 September, 2022
C.M.A.No.1051 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
C.M.A. No.1051 of 2013
1.Geetha
2.Kalaiya
3.Kasthuri
4.Minor Devapriyan
S/o. Late Chakkaravarthy,
Minor Rep. by mother Geetha. ... Appellants
vs.
1.R.Devathal
2.United India Insurance Company Limited,
Rep. by its Branch Manager,
Coimbatore. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, against the Judgment and Decree dated 28.02.2011
made in M.C.O.P.No.832 of 2006 on the file of Motor Vehicle Claims
Tribunal / Additional District Judge, Krishnagiri.
For Appellants : Mr.Mukund R.Pandiyan
For Respondent 1 : Served - No appearance
For Respondent 2 : M/s.I.Malar
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1051 of 2013
JUDGMENT
The claimants who are the legal representatives of the deceased
Chakkaravarthy filed the above appeal seeking enhancement of the award
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Additional District Judge,
Krishnagiri District in M.C.O.P.No.832 of 2006.
2. The brief facts are as follows:
The accident had taken place on 14.02.2006 when the deceased
Chakkaravarthy was driving an Omni van bearing Registration
No.T.N.38.F.3729. He was driving the same in a rash and negligent manner
as a result of which he had lost control of the vehicle and the Omni van had
overturned. The said Chakkaravarthy had sustained grievous injuries and has
ultimately succumbed to the injuries.
3. The learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the
accident had occurred because a pedestrian has suddenly darted across the
road. If he had not suddenly crossed the road, the accident would not have
occurred. The Tribunal held that the deceased had also contributed for the
accident and therefore, fixed a contributory negligence at 50% and arrived at
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1051 of 2013
a compensation of Rs.4,48,000/- and considering the negligence had directed
the Respondents to pay a sum of Rs.2,24,000/- to the appellants/petitioners.
4. The Insurance company had taken a plea that they were not liable to
pay compensation to the appellants / claimants. The deceased himself was
the tort-feasor and further the claimants had already filed a claim petition
before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem in W.C.No.174 of 2006.
Challenging the quantum, the appellants are before this Court.
5. The counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants would state that
the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.1,500/- per week and was employed
as a driver with M/s.Amman Nattis Machines, Uppilipalayam.
6. Per contra, Mrs.I.Malar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the Insurance Company would submit that the Tribunal below had not taken
into account the fact that the Insurance Company has taken a plea that they
are not liable to compensate the claimants since the deceased is the tort-
feasor himself. Further, there is no proof to show that the deceased was an
employee in the said 1st Respondent's company. That apart, simultaneous
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1051 of 2013
proceedings have also been taken, one before the Deputy Commissioner of
Labour under the workmen's compensation and the other before the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal. She would submit that despite this, compensation
has been granted and the very order granting compensation is erroneous and
the Tribunal ought to have dismissed the claim petition.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the counsel for the
2nd respondent/Insurance Company.
8. Though, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company would
submit that the deceased is himself the tort feasor and therefore not entitled
to compensation, however, they have not filed any appeal challenging the
said award. Therefore, it would not lie in the mouth of the respondents to
take such a plea at this juncture. However, this Court cannot also close its
eyes to the fact that the tort-feasor is seeking a premium for his fault.
Therefore, the appellants are not entitled to claim an enhancement.
9. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the
order passed by the Tribunal below is confirmed and the Judgment and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1051 of 2013
Decree dated 28.02.2011 made in M.C.O.P.No.832 of 2006 on the file of
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Additional District Judge, Krishnagiri is
confirmed and no enhancement can be granted to the appellants/claimants.
No costs.
15.09.2022
Index : Yes/No
Speaking / Non-speaking order
ssn/ mka
To:
1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Additional District Judge,
Krishnagiri.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1051 of 2013
P.T. ASHA, J.,
ssn/mka
C.M.A. No.1051 of 2013
15.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
