Madras High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Valli on 27 November, 2023
Author: N.Seshasayee
Bench: N.Seshasayee
C.M.A.No.2982 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.11.2023
CORAM:
MR.JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE
C.M.A.No.2982 of 2022
and C.M.P.Nos.23198 of 2022 and 18854 of 2023
The Divisional Manager
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
3rd Party Claim Hub
No.256, Prakasam Salai
Chennai 600 008 ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Valli
2.Sakkaravarthi
3.Priyanka
4.Srinivason ... Respondent
PRAYER:This Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.518 of 2015
dated 09.09.2022 on the file of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
Cases / Subordinate Court, Gingee.
For appellant : Mr.J.Chandran
For respondents : Mr.E.Kannadasan - R1 to R3
Mr.M.Guruprasad - R4
JUDGMENT
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
On 06.09.2015 at about 11.30 a.m., certain Thiruvengadam died in a road
accident. The manner how the accident took place has different versions,
but the fact remains he died in a road accident while he was riding a
motorcycle bearing Registration No.PY-01-CC-0975. Seeking a
compensation, his dependants approached the Tribunal and the Tribunal did
award a compensation of Rs.12,40,000/-.
2.Now turning to the specifics, according to the claimants the accident had
taken place when a rashly and negligently driven goods carrier knocked the
motorcycle in which Thiruvengadam was riding at the relevant time from
behind owing to which Thiruvengadam lost control and dashed against a
road side tree and met his end. The Insurance Company of the goods carrier
which contested the matter contended that the concerned goods carrier was
not involved in the accident. According to it, the victim of the accident due
to his rash and negligent driving ran on to a road side tree and died.
3. Before the Tribunal, the claimants have examined four witnesses of whom
P.W.2 Kumar is critical. The respondent interalia examined R.W.1, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
brother of the victim.
4.The Insurance Company appears to have placed reliance on Ex.P.1 / F.I.R,
registered at the instance of R.W.1, to project his case of non involvement of
the goods carrier in the accident. The Tribunal however, opted to rely on the
testimony of P.W.3, an independent witness to hold that there indeed was an
accident involving the offending vehicle and proceeded to pass an award for
the compensation that it has determined.
5.Contending that there is no involvement of the goods carrier as alleged by
the claimants, the Insurance Company of the alleged offending vehicle has
preferred this appeal.
6.The learned counsel for the appellant / Insurance Company made the
following submissions:
a) The F.I.R. was registered at the instance of the brother of the
victim who was later examined as R.W.1. In Ex.P.1, it is stated
that the victim had invited his ultimate end due to his rash and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
negligent driving.
b) The Tribunal went wrong in relying on the testimony of
P.W.3, who had deposed before the Tribunal that he was some
300 meters away and came to the spot when he rushed to the
S.O.C on hearing the noise of the accident.
c) The Tribunal has strangely held that because P.W.3 has not
denied the involvement of the offending vehicle, it has to be
concluded that it was so involved. R.W.1 in his testimony says
when he visited the S.O.C. he had seen the goods carrier but does
not provide details that it is the offending vehicle involved in the
accident.
d) The offending vehicle was identified as involved in the
accident some 20 days after the accident and it is found to belong
to the 1st respondent who also hails from the same place from
where the victim too hailed, R.W.1 speaks to this fact.
7.Collating the bits and pieces of material before this Court, the learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
counsel submitted that the inconsistency as between the evidence made
available by the claimants before the Tribunal shows considerable amount of
internal inconsistencies and contradictions, and that they are plainly
unreliable.
8.Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimants / respondents submitted
that R.W.1 has testified that he came to know about the accident only from a
cell phonic call from P.W.2 and P.W.2 speaks to the accident. This apart,
R.W.1 even in his chief examination has deposed that he did not prefer any
written complaint to the police and that he had signed merely the complaint
which had already been prepared. He also added that he was forced to sign
the document only to expedite post mortem on the body of his brother.
Therefore, the testimony of R.W.1 cannot be read in isolation and unconnected
to the circumstances under which he became instrumental for the
registration of Ex.P.1 / F.I.R.
9.Rival submissions carefully weighed. Even though Evidence Act may not
stricto sensu applied to proceedings of a Tribunal, the fact remains that in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
all proceedings of civil character, the Court necessarily need to apply the rule
of preponderance of probability in deciding disputed question of fact. Here
the question before the Court is whether the goods carrier of the 1st
respondent was involved in the accident. As indicated above, this fact has to
be decided based on the rule of preponderance of probability.
10.The learned counsel for the appellant relied on Ex.P.1. Ex.P.1, on its
face fixes the negligence on the victim of the accident. It however, has to be
underscored, that it was given by R.W.1, who admittedly was not at the
SOC. Therefore, this Court necessarily requires to look to other evidence.
R.W.1 in his cross examination refers to certain Perumal and another Balu
were at the Police Station. Of them, Perumal is stated to belong to the very
place from where the claimants come from. When R.W.1 is not an eye
witness and R.W.1 also refers to two other witnesses, they could have been
examined especially when Ex.P1 does not support the case of the claimants.
One line of consistency which this Court finds from the evidence on record
is that R.W.1 states that he was informed about the accident by certain
Kumar, and this Kumar was examined as P.W.2. In his cross examination,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
he had categorically admitted that the victim of the accident was speed-
riding and dashed against the road side tree as he could not control the
vehicle. He had further admitted in his cross examination that the alleged
offending vehicle was implicated in the accident only to obtain
compensation. Lastly and not surprisingly, the owner of the offending
vehicle hails from the very place where the claimants hail.
11.As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the appellant, when bits and
pieces of evidence now available on record are collated together, it inspires
confidence to conclude that the offending vehicle might have been involved
in the accident as alleged by the Tribunal. This Court finds that the Tribunal
has over strained itself in appreciating the evidence of P.W.3 to hold that the
driver of the offending vehicle was responsible. The Tribunal apparently did
not take into consideration to other attending facts. Even if P.W.3's
testimony is considered, he claims that he heard the noise of the accident
from a place which according to him is some 300 meters away from the
scene of accident. This implies that he is not an eye witness to the accident
and whatever he has testified vis-a-vis the manner of the accident can be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
accepted only with a pinch of salt.
12.This Court concludes that the evidence on record preponderates the only
possibility that the 1st respondent's goods carrier could not have been
involved in the accident.
13.The appeal stands allowed accordingly. The judgment and decree passed
in M.C.O.P.No.518 of 2015 dated 09.09.2022 on the file of the learned
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Cases and Judge / Subordinate Court
Judge, Gingee is hereby set aside. This Court is informed that the appellant /
Insurance Company had made certain deposits to the credit of this case
before the Tribunal. It is now entitled to withdraw the same with all accrued
interest. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.
27.11.2023
kas
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To.
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
Subordinate Court,
Gingee
N.SESHASAYEE, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
kas
27.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
