M/S.United India Insurance ... vs Sankaranarayanan :Ist
2023 Latest Caselaw 14161 Mad

    2023/MHC/4923



                                                              1

                                  BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                   DATED: 02.11.2023

                                                          CORAM:

                             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN

                                              C.M.A(MD)NO.1078 OF 2023
                                                        and
                                              C.M.P(MD)No.14826 of 2023

                     M/s.United India Insurance Company Limited,
                     represented by its Branch Manager,
                     having office at No.61/2694,
                     First Floor(Indian Bank Upstairs),
                     South Main Road,
                     Thanjavur.                         :Appellant/Second Respondent

                                                   .vs.

                     1.Sankaranarayanan                           :Ist Respondent/Claim Petitioner

                     2.S.Kalaiselvan                              : Second Respondent/First
                                                                                  Respondent


                     PRAYER:           Civil Miscellaneous   Appeal    filed under Section 173 of
                     the Motor Vehicles Act, against the award made in M.C.O.P.No.387
                     of 2016, dated 27.1.2023, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
                     Tribunal(Special Subordinate Court), Tiruchirappalli.


                                       For Appellant              :Mr.M.Arjun Varman

                                       For Respondent-1           :Mr.N.Sudhagar Nagaraj

                                                    JUDGMENT

*********

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed challenging the award

passed in M.C.O.P.No.387 of 2016, dated 27.01.2023, on the file of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal(Special Subordinate Judge),

Thiruchirappalli.The first respondent herein fliled the above claim

petition claiming a sum of Rs.9 lakhs as compensation for the

injuries and disability suffered by him in the road accident.

2.The case of the first respondent/claimant is that on

26.12.2015 at about 9.30 p.m.when he was riding his motor cycle

bearing Registration No. TN 48 L 7837 from east to west in Trichy

to Salem Main Road. When he was coming near Rettai Mandapam,

Nochiam, a Tavera car bearing Registration No. TN 49 AH 2851

belong to the second respondent, came from opposite direction ie,

west to east in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against

the two wheeler. As a result of the accident, the first respondent

suffered injuries all over the body including right hip and left neck

femur joint fracture, left leg above ankle fracture and left leg toe

fracture and also injuries at left ear. He suffered permanent

disability. He was working as a Cook before the accident and

earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month and after the accident he

is not in a position to work as before. Thus the claim petition.

3.In the counter filed by the appellant, the manner of the

accident is disputed. It is said that the rider of the two wheeler

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

namely, the first respondent had driven the two wheeler in a rash

and negligent manner and suddenly crossed the road and dashed

against the car bearing Registration No. TN 49 AH 2851. since he

was responsible for the accident, FIR was registered against the

driver of the two wheeler. The nature of the injuries and disability

said to have been suffered are disputed. The compensation claimed

is excessive.

4.Druing enquiry before the Tribunal, on the side of the

Petitioner, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 were

marked. On the side of the respondents, R.W.1 was examined and

summoned witnesses were examined as R.W.2 and R.W.3 and no

document was marked. The Disability Certificate was marked as

Court Document/Ex.C1.

5.Considering the oral and documentary evidence, the learned

Tribunal found that the claimant/first respondent had also

contributed to the accident at 50%. Taking into consideration all the

other aspects like injuries, medical treatment, medical bills,

disbaility suffered, awarded a sum of Rs.3,21,260/-. Then deducted

50% of the award amount towards the contributory negligence on

the part of the first respondent and finally awarded a sum of Rs.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

1,60,630/- as compensation in favour of the first respondent.

6.This award is being challenged by the learned counsel for

the appeallant mainly on the ground that the accident had happened

out and out and the total irresponsible and negligent act of the rider

of the two wheeler. Both the vehicles have been going in the

highway. The second respondent vehicle was going from west to

east direction keeping its left side ie., northern side of the road.

The first respondent was coming from east to west, had taken a

sudden turn, without giving any indication, towards north to reach

Pachur Pirivu Road, on the north to east-west road and dashed

against the side of the car bearing Registration No. TN 49 AH 2851.

Therefore the Mannachanallur Police had registered an FIR against

the rider of the two wheeler. However, the Tribunal has given a

wrong finding that in accident cases, strict proof of negligence is not

required. Quantum of compensation awarded is excessive and thus

prays for setting aside the award passed by the Tribunal.

7.In response, the learned counsel for the first respondent

submitted that the Tribunal had applied correct proposition of law

with regard to the fixation of liability and finding that the first

respondent had also contributed to the accident, fastened the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

liability on him and deducted 50% of the compensation amount. In

accident cases strict proof of negligence as required in criminal

cases, is not required. Therefore, he prays to confirm the award

passed by the Tribunal.

8.This Court considered the rival submissions made on either

side and perused the records.

9.It is not in dispute that the accident involved the two

wheeler bearing Registration No. TN 48 L 7837 and Tavera Car

bearing Registration No.TN 49 AH 2851 and the accident had

happened at about 21.30 p.m on 26.12.2015 in Trichy to Salem

Main Road near Rettai Mandapam, Nochiam. In the accident, the

first respondent suffered injuries. The learned counsel for the

appellant brought to the notice of this Court the evidence of P.W.2

to show that P.W.2 was not able to pin-point as to who was

responsible for the accident. He also produced the evidence of R.W.

1, the driver of the vehicle bearing Registration No. TN 49 AH 2851

to show that it was the two wheeler driver who had come in a rash

and negligent manner and hit against the car on its left side.

10.The accident had happened in a highways.The first

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

respondent in his proof affidavit stated that when he was riding two

wheeler from east to west near Nochiam Rettai Mandapam, the car

bearing Registration No. TN 49 AH 2851 come from the opposite

direction in a rash and negligent manner, came in the wrong side of

the road and hit against the two wheeler. Evidence of R.W.3, driver

of the Tavera Car is not specific with regard to the manner in which

the accident had happened. He stated that when he reached Rettai

Mandapam, a person had come in a two wheeler had dahsed

against the left side of the car. There is no specific evidence that

the two wheeler rider had come to the wrong side of the road and

hit against the car. Of course, the FIR was filed against the rider of

the two wheeler. It is settled propostiion of law, as found by the

learned Tribunal, that in claims cases, strict proof of negligence of

the driver of the offending vehicle is not necessary. This Court

finds from the award passed by the Tribunal that the two wheeler

rider was also 50% responsible for the accident. Therefore, this

Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal taking into

consideration all the relevant aspects had apportioned rightly the

liability at 50:50 on the rider of the two wheeler and the driver of

the Tavera Car bearing Registration No. TN 49 AH 2851.

11.Considering the nature of the injuries and the disability

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

suffered by the injured namely, the first respondent, the award of

Rs.1,60,630/- after deducting 50% of the award amount towards

contributory negligence on the part of the first respondent in

casuing the accident, cannot be considered as excessive. This Court

finds that there is no valid grounds made out for interference in the

award passed by the Tribunal and as such, there is no merit in the

appeal.

12.Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed

and the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.387 of 2016, dated

27.01.2023, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal(Special Subordinate Judge), Thiruchirappalli stands

confirmed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition

is closed.

02.11.2023

Index:Yes/No

Internet:Yes/No

NCC:Yes/No

vsn

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

To

1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special Subordinate Court), Tiruchirappalli.

2.The Record Keeper, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

G.CHANDRASEKHARAN,J.

vsn

JUDGMENT MADE IN C.M.A(MD)NO.1078 OF 2023 and C.M.P(MD)No.14826 of 2023

02.11.2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis