Madras High Court
Lakshmi vs K.Uma Shankar on 5 January, 2023
C.M.A.No.1357 of 2021
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.01.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
C.M.A.No.1357 of 2021
1. Lakshmi
2. Rajeswari
3. Dev Anandh ... Appellants
(appellants 2 and 3 are minors represented
by their Natural Guardian and mother
the 1st appellant)
Vs.
1. K.Uma Shankar
2. United India Insurance Company Limited,
Old address at No.266, D.O.C. Kapila Towersi Floor,
Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore.
New address at
New No.134, Old No.40-42,
Greams Road, TP Claims Hub,
Silingi Buildings, Chennai-600 006. ... Respondents
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1357 of 2021
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the decree and judgment dated 20th November,
2020 passed in M.C.O.P.No.3352 of 2012, by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Special Sub-Court No.1, Small Causes Court, Chennai.
For Appellants : Mr.S.Ramajayam
For 1st respondent : Mr.J.Michael Visvasam
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was pronounced by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)
The claimants, who sought compensation for the death of one Rajesh
in a motor accident that occurred about 11.30 p.m. on 23.08.2011, are on
appeal aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim petition on the ground that
the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased
Rajesh.
2. The claimants, who are the wife and children of the deceased
Rajesh, claimed that the accident took place at about 7.30 p.m. on
23.08.2011, while the deceased Rajesh was driving a Maruti Car bearing
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1357 of 2021
Registration No.TN 05 E 9822 on Salem National Highway near
Puthumapattu, a Mahindra Van bearing Registration No. TN 22 X 4893
which was coming in the opposite direction dashed against the car. As a
result of the said collusion, the deceased Rajesh and Raja who was a
passenger sustained injuries. While Rajesh succumbed to the injuries, Raja
was admitted in a hospital. Claiming that the deceased Rajesh was working
as a Helper and Packer by profession and earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- p.m.,
the claimants sought for compensation of Rs.15,50,000/-.
3. The said claim was resisted by the Insurance Company contending
that the accident did not occur in the manner suggested by the claimants.
The Insurance Company claimed that as per the F.I.R. that was registered
immediately after the accident, the accident had occurred at 11.30 p.m. on
23.08.2011, while the car which was driven by the deceased Rajesh was
driven at high speed and dashed against the Mahindra Van which was
coming in the opposite direction. The contents of the F.I.R., which was
lodged by a stranger who was riding a Two Wheeler on the same road at the
time of the accident, were projected as a defence to the claim. The fact that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1357 of 2021
the final report was also filed against the said Rajesh was also pressed into
service by the Insurance Company for repudiating its liability.
4. Before the Tribunal, the 1st claimant was examined as P.W.1 and
the person who lodged the FIR, namely, one Murugan was examined as
P.W.2. Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6 were marked. The Administrative Officer of the 2 nd
respondent-Insurance Company was examined as R.W.1. Ex.R.1 to Ex.R5
were marked.
5. The Tribunal, on consideration of the evidence, particularly, the
contents of the F.I.R. and the Final Report and relying on the oral evidence
of the person who lodged the FIR as P.W.2 concluded that the accident
occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Maruti
Car. The Tribunal took into account the Proof Affidavit of P.W.2 Murugan
wherein he had stated that the car was coming behind him when the
accident occurred. In the F.I.R., the same P.W.2 had stated that the car
overtook him and went and hit the van which was coming in the opposite
direction. These contradictions in the evidence of P.W.2 and the improbable
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1357 of 2021
version in the evidence of the Two Wheeler rider that he saw the accident
that occurred behind him, led the Tribunal to conclude that the oral evidence
of P.W.2 is unreliable. On the said conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the
claim petition.
6. We have heard Mr.S.Ramajayam, learned Counsel appearing for
the appellants and Mr.J.Michael Visvasam, learned Counsel appearing for
the 2nd respondent Insurance Company.
7. Mr.S.Ramajayam, learned Counsel for the appellants would
vehemently contend that P.W.2 has stated that he only signed the F.I.R. and
the contents were written by the police. Therefore, the contents of the F.I.R.
ought not to have been believed by the Tribunal. No doubt, the F.I.R. is
only an First Information Report. But some evidentiary value has to be
attached to it. It is seen that P.W.2 Murugan had gone to the police station
at about 2.00 a.m. on 24.08.2011 to lodge a complaint. It is not the case of
any of the parties that there were some police personnel present at the time
of the accident. The police were oblivious to the accident till the FIR was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1357 of 2021
lodged. Therefore, it is not possible to accept the contention of the
claimants that the FIR was prepared by the police according to their own
whims and fancies. The eye-witness had gone to the police station at 2.00
p.m. in the morning on 24.08.2011 and has lodged the complaint. However,
he had chosen to backtrack when he was examined before the Tribunal
claiming that he only signed the FIR and he does not know the contents of
the FIR.
8. We are unable to accept the said submission of the learned
Counsel appearing for the appellants. Moreover, the version of P.W.2 in his
Proof Affidavit as rightly contended by the Tribunal is most improbable. A
Two Wheeler rider, that too, in the night cannot claim that he saw the
accident that took place behind him. Therefore, the said version is fully
unacceptable and improbable. Hence, we find that the Tribunal was right in
rejecting the said version of P.W.2. We are, therefore unable to fault the
Tribunal for having rejected the evidence of P.W.2 and concluded that the
accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the
Maruti Car, the deceased Rajesh and therefore, his legal heirs or dependants
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1357 of 2021
are not entitled to compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988.
9. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal fails and it is,
accordingly dismissed. No costs.
(R.S.M.,J.) (S.S.K.,J.)
05.01.2023
tsi
Internet :Yes
Index :No
Speaking order
To:
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Special Sub-Court No.1,
Small Causes Court, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1357 of 2021
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
tsi
C.M.A.No.1357 of 2021
05.01.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
