Madras High Court
Ramachandran vs Rajkumar on 27 November, 2023
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
C.M.A.Nos.980 to 982 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.11.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
C.M.A.Nos.980 to 982 of 2020
and
C.M.P.Nos.8984, 8977 & 8980 of 2020
1.Ramachandran ... Appellant in C.M.A.No.980 of 2020
2.Mohanraj ... Appellant in C.M.A.No.981 of 2020
3.Arumugam ... Appellant in C.M.A.No.982 of 2020
Vs.
1.Rajkumar
2.Manager,
New India Assurance Company Ltd.,
Divisional Office,
No.29, Paramathi Road,
Namakkal – 637 001. ... Respondents in all CMAs
Prayer in C.M.A.No.980 of 2020 : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under
Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree
dated 04.07.2019 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1363 of 2017 on the file of Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Namakkal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.980 to 982 of 2020
Prayer in C.M.A.No.981 of 2020 : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under
Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree
dated 04.07.2019 passed in M.C.O.P.No.886 of 2017 on the file of Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Namakkal.
Prayer in C.M.A.No.982 of 2020 : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under
Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree
dated 04.07.2019 passed in M.C.O.P.No.861 of 2017 on the file of Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Namakkal.
For Appellant : Mr.C.Thangaraju
(in all CMAs)
For Respondents : No appearance [R1]
(in all CMAs)
*****
COMMON JUDGEMENT
Challenging the judgement and decree passed by the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Namakkal in
M.C.O.P.Nos.1361, 886 and 861 of 2017, dated 04.07.2019, the respective
claimants are before this Court.
2. As per the claim petitions, on 25.07.2017 at about 08.00 p.m.,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.980 to 982 of 2020
when one of the claimant Mohanraj was driving the vehicle bearing
Reg.No.TN 65 X 5946 along with the other claimants Arumugam and
Ramachandran as pillion riders, the vehicle bearing Reg.No.TN 47 AT 1323
coming in the opposite direction, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent
manner, dashed against the vehicle driven by Mohanraj, resulting in the
claimants sustaining grievous injuries and thereafter, they were admitted in
the hospital and took treatment. Therefore, for the injuries suffered by the
claimants, they have filed claim petitions claiming a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-
each as compensation before the Tribunal.
3. Before the Tribunal, the claimants examined four witnesses viz.,
P.W.1 to P.W.4 and marked 31 documents viz., Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.31. On the
side of the respondents, they have examined two witnesses viz., R.W.1 and
R.W.2 and marked 4 documents viz., Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.4. After adjudication,
the Tribunal had rejected the claim petitions filed by the claimants.
Aggrieved by the same, the claimants have filed the present appeals.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.980 to 982 of 2020
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants
submitted that, the Tribunal has wrongly come to the conclusion that the
case was cooked up case on the premise that the complaint was given after a
period of two days. Merely because the complaint was given after a period
of two days, will not make the claims fictitious one, more so, when the
claimants were injured, which is evident from the deposition of doctor and
they have taken treatment for the injuries. The accident would also stand
proved on the basis of FIR registered in Crime No.146 of 2017, in which the
first respondent, the driver of the offending vehicle was charge sheeted and
was sentenced to pay the fine by the competent criminal court. Therefore,
not properly appreciating all the materials, the Tribunal erred in dismissing
the claims made by the claimants, which requires interference.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
insurance company submitted that, the claimant Mohanraj was driver of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.980 to 982 of 2020
vehicle, which had also contributed to the accident and he being the tort-
feasor cannot maintain any claim against the insurance company and rightly
the claim made by the said claimant was negatived. He also submitted that
the driver of the vehicle as also the pillion riders are under the influence of
alcohol, which took proved through examination of R.W.1 and therefore,
the act of the claimants being in contravention of policy conditions, they
would not be entitled for any compensation. The Tribunal had rightly
negatived the claims made by the claimants, which needs no interference.
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and perused
the materials available on record.
7. The appellant in C.M.A.No.981 of 2020 was the driver of the two
wheeler. The carrying capacity of the vehicle is two, whereas three persons
had gone in the said vehicle, which had met with the accident. The said
triple driving is in violation of the condition of the policy and therefore, the
claimants would not be entitled to claim any compensation at the hands of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.980 to 982 of 2020
the insurance company. The fact that the claimants have gone together in
the vehicle is not in dispute. The Tribunal has given a finding that the
accident has spoken to by the claimants could not have happened on
account of the fact that the complaint was given after a lapse of two days.
To arrive at the said finding, the Tribunal has relied upon the fact that had
the claimants taken treatment at the Government Hospital, then necessarily
the accident would not have been brought to the knowledge of the law
enforcing agency and the complaint would have come to be registered on
the very same day itself. However, the fact that no complaint was registered
on the said date, but with a delay clearly shows that the complainants have
for the purpose of getting compensation created an accident and lodged a
complaint after a period of two days. At the said finding coupled with the
fact that the driver of the vehicle was smelling alcohol in his breath which
has been deposed by R.W.1 gives more credence to the finding recorded by
the Tribunal and necessarily, the accident having happened at the instances
of the claimant as tort-feasor, the claimant Mohanraj/appellant in
C.M.A.No.981 of 2020 would not entitled to claim any compensation at the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.980 to 982 of 2020
hands of the insurance company.
8. Insofar as the other two claimants/appellants in C.M.A.Nos.980
and 982 of 2020 are concerned, once the factum of the accident is not
accepted by the Tribunal for reasons given in the impugned award and this
Court also being in agreement with the said findings recorded by the
Tribunal, necessarily, the compensation as sought for by the appellants in
C.M.A.No.980 and 982 of 2020 cannot be granted. However, the said
appellants would be entitled to compensation under no fault liability under
Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and they would be entitled to
compensation in a sum of Rs.25,000/- each under the provision of no fault
liability.
9. In the above back drop, the impugned award passed by the
Tribunal is modified by awarding a sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the
appellants in C.M.A.No.980 and 982 of 2020 respectively and the appellant
in C.M.A.No.981 of 2020 would not be entitled for any compensation at the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.980 to 982 of 2020
hands of the insurance company.
10. In the aforesaid terms, the appeals in C.M.A.Nos.980 and 982 of
2020 are allowed in part and the appeal in C.M.A.No.981 of 2020 is
dismissed. The second respondent/ insurance company is directed to pay a
Rs.25,000/- each to the credit of M.C.O.P.Nos.1363 and 861 of 2017 along
with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition
till the date of deposit and costs as awarded by the Tribunal, less, the
amount, if any already deposited, within a period of four (4) weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this common judgement. On such deposit being
made, the Tribunal is directed to transfer the award amount directly to the
bank account of the appellants in C.M.A.Nos.980 and 982 of 2020 through
RTGS within a period of two (2) weeks thereafter upon production of proof
with regard to payment of Court fee on the modified compensation by the
respective appellants. In view of the above common judgement passed in
these appeals, this Court is of the view that, no order is necessary in the civil
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.980 to 982 of 2020
miscellaneous petitions in C.M.P.Nos.8984, 8977 and 8980 of 2023 seeking
to receive the additional documents mentioned in the list of documents and
to be marked as Ex.P.32 and Ex.P.33 in the above appeals and accordingly,
these Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.
27.11.2023
Index : Yes / No
Speaking Order : Yes / No
Neutral Citation Case : Yes / No
sp
To
1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge,
Namakkal.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R. Section,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.980 to 982 of 2020
M.DHANDAPANI,J.,
sp
C.M.A.Nos.980 to 982 of 2020
27.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
