Madras High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Esai Selvi on 22 November, 2023
C.M.A(MD)No.61 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on 07.11.2023
Pronounced on 22.11.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
C.M.A(MD)No.61 of 2019
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.666 of 2019
The Divisional Manager,
United India Insurance Company Limited,
Tenkasi. ... Appellant / 2nd Respondent
-vs-
1.Esai Selvi
2.Lakshmi
3.Kanakka Nadar ... Respondents 1 to 3/Petitioners
4.Murugesan @ Saskthi Murugesan
5.ICICI Lombard Insurance Co. Ltd.,
ICICI Lombard House,
414, Veer Savarkar,
Prabadevi, Mumbai-25. ... Respondents 4 & 5/Respondents 1 & 3
PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been filed under Section 173 of
Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated 16.03.2018
____________
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.61 of 2019
passed in M.C.O.P.No.60 of 2017 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Additional District Judge), Tenkasi.
For Appellant : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai
For R1 to R3 : Mr.R.J.Karthick
For R4 : No Appearance
For R5 : Mr.P.Pethu Rajesh
JUDGMENT
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.
The Insurance company is the appellant herein. Challenging the award
passed in M.C.O.P.No.60 of 2017, dated 16.03.2018 by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge), Tenkasi, the appellant/Insurance
Company has filed the above appeal on the ground of negligence and quantum.
2. The respondents 1 to 3 are the claim petitioners before the Tribunal
claiming compensation for the death of the deceased Muppudathi, who is the
husband of the first respondent herein, aged 26 years at the time of the accident.
In the claim petition as well as the witness of P.W.1, the first respondent herein,
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
would depose that on 20.01.2014 at about 04.30 p.m., on Tenkasi to Madurai
National Highways near Kadayanallur Veterinary Hospital, when the deceased
Muppudathi was riding his Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing Reg.No.TN-76-
AA-0472 on the extreme left side of the road following traffic rules, a TATA ACE
van bearing Reg. No.TN-76-P-6964 which was driven by its driver in a rash and
negligent manner, dashed against the motorcycle from opposite side. In the said
accident, the said Muppudathi sustained grievous injuries. Thereafter, he was
taken to the private hospital at Nagercoil for treatment, where, he succumbed to
the injuries on 21.01.2014.
3. In the counter statement filed by the Insurance Company, it is contended
that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the
deceased himself and the deceased was possessing only as LLR license at the
time of the accident and therefore, the owner of the vehicles as well as the
Insurance company of TATA ACE which is involved in the accident cannot be
held with any liability.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. During the trial, on behalf of the claim petitioners, three witnesses were
examined as P.W.1 to P.W.3 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13. On behalf of the
respondents, four witnesses were examined as R.W.1 to R.W.4 and marked Ex.R.1
to Ex.R.3 and on behalf of the third party, Ex.X1 and Ex.X.2 were exhibited.
5. On consideration of both oral and documentary evidence adduced before
the Tribunal, the learned Additional District Judge has held that the accident had
taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the TATA ACE
goods vehicle, which is insured with the present appellant herein and accordingly,
held that only the owner of the TATA ACE vehicle and the appellant/Insurance
company are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation and accordingly,
awarded a sum of Rs.30,26,000/-. Hence, the appeal.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance company
would contend that the Tribunal has not rightly appreciated the evidence of
R.W.3, the driver of the TATA ACE goods vehicle and also contend that the
notional income fixed by the Tribunal is on the higher side.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. The learned counsel for the claim petitioners made submissions in
support of the award.
8. This Court has given its anxious consideration for the rival submissions
made by the respective parties and also perused the records.
9. P.W.2, the occurrence witness has categorically stated that while the
deceased was riding his two wheeler, the TATA ACE vehicle driver was driven
the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. During the
cross examination of P.W.2, Ex.R.1, Rough sketch prepared by the police was
marked. We have perused Ex.P.13, charge sheet marked through P.W.3, Head
Constable of the concerned Police Station. The police have filed charge sheet
after investigation against the driver of the goods vehicle, namely, the first
respondent before the Tribunal. The driver of the goods vehicle has not filed any
counter statement, however, he was examined at the instance of the Insurance
company as R.W.3. After perusing the evidence, we find that R.W.3 has not
chosen to deny the manner of the accident narrated in the claim petition by filing
the counter statement or filed any protest petition against the police, who have
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
registered the case against him. After perusing the evidence of P.W.2, the
occurrence witness and Ex.P.3 charge sheet, we find that the manner of the
accident spoken to by P.W.2 would really be probable by Ex.R.1, Rough sketch
and hence, on that score, we find that the version of R.W.3, the driver of the
goods vehicle is only a sweeping statement to save his skin and accordingly, we
have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the evidence of R.W.3 is self
serving statement and hence, we hold that the evidence of P.W.2 regarding the
manner of the accident was duly corroborated and hence, we find that the finding
rendered by the Tribunal that the accident has taken place due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the goods vehicle, which is insured with the
appellant and consequently, both owner of the vehicle as well as the Insurance
company are jointly are severally liable to pay the compensation, does not call for
any interference and this point is answered accordingly.
10. On the point of quantum of compensation, we heard both the learned
counsel.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11. On the date of the accident, viz., on 20.01.2014, as per the driving
license of the deceased under Ex.P.6, his date of birth is 20.02.1988 and hence, on
the date of the accident, he was 26 years old and as per the certificate produced
before the Tribunal, he is a Diploma as well as B.E as could be seen from Ex.P.7
to Ex.P.9. The Tribunal has rightly fixed Rs.500/- per day and arrived at
Rs.15,000/- p.m., as notional income and future prospects, following the Pranay
Sethi's case has adopted 40% and accordingly, Rs.15,000/- + Rs.6000/- =
Rs.21,000/-. Since the deceased died leaving behind the three dependents, 1/3rd
deduction and multiplier is 17 as per the Sarala Verma's case case and hence, we
find that the pecuniary loss ascertained by the Tribunal is in accordance with law
established on the above said decisions and that the compensation awarded under
the conventional head is also in accordance with law and hence, we find that the
quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is in accordance with law does
not call for any interference.
12. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the
award dated 16.03.2018 passed in M.C.O.P.No.60 of 2017 on the file of the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Judge (Additional District Judge), Tenkasi, is
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
confirmed. The appellant/Insurance company is directed to deposit the entire
award amount with interest and costs, within a period of eight weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, if not already deposited and on such
deposit being made, the respondents 1 to 3/claimants are permitted to withdraw
their shares together with interest and costs. No costs. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
[T.K.R., J.] [P.B.B., J.]
22 .11.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
sji
To
1. The Additional District Judge,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tenkasi.
2. The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.
and
P.B.BALAJI, J.
sji
and
22.11.2023
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
