Madras High Court
The Manager vs B.Anjappa @ Anji on 30 November, 2023
Author: N.Seshasayee
Bench: N.Seshasayee
C.M.A.No.919 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 02.11.2023
Pronounced on : 30.11.2023
CORAM : JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE
C.M.A.No.919 of 2022
and CMP.No.6843 of 2022
The Manager
Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd
Branch 4-A, 4th Floor, Thirumalai Towers
723, Avanashi Road
Coimbatore - 641 018. ... Appellant / 2nd Respondent
Vs
1.B.Anjappa @ Anji
2.V.Sekar ... Respondents / Petitioner ,
1st
Respondent
PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, praying to set aside the judgment and decree passed by
the Tribunal in the above MCOP.No.248 of 2014 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Sub Judge, MACT) at Krishnagiri, dated
22.3.2019.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Krishnamoorthy
For Respondents : Mr.S.Murugan for R1
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.919 of 2022
R2 - Exparte
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the Appellant/Insurance Company challenging an
Award passed in MCOP.No.248 of 2014 by Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Special Sub Judge, MACT), Krishnagiri.
2. According to the first respondent/claimant, on 06.05.2009, while he was
driving his goods carrier bearing Reg.No.KA 17 A 1979 with all requisite
caution behind a lorry bearing Reg.No.KA 01 AG 5488 belonging to the
first respondent and insured with the second respondent, the driver of the
second mentioned lorry suddenly applied breaks without any indication, and
despite the claimant applying breaks to his vehicle, he could not prevent the
collision of his lorry on the other lorry that stopped suddenly without a hint.
A case came to be registered against the claimant in Cr. No.355/2009 under
Section 279 and 337 of IPC by Kaveripattinam Police.
3. Claiming damages for the injury suffered, the claimant approached the
Tribunal with MCOP.No.248 of 2014. The first respondent before the
Tribunal (owner of the lorry) remained ex-parte and the insurance company
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
alone contested the matter. According to the insurance company, the
claimant had ramped his vehicle on a stationary lorry that was parked on the
side of the highway. The Tribunal however, has fixed the liability on the
offending lorry essentially on the ground that there was no evidence that the
driver of the lorry had switched on the parking lamps, and that to explain the
accident, the driver of the offending lorry was also not examined. Ultimately,
the Tribunal proceeded to fix the entire responsibility on the driver of the
offending lorry.
4.Turning to the compensation part of the Award, the claimant had suffered
fracture to his left leg patella. As per Ext.P4 - discharge summary, he was
hospitalized for 10 days from 06.05.2009 to 15.05.2009, discharge
summary The medical board had assessed his disability at 40%. Since the
claimant was a driver by avocation, the Tribunal treated the disability
suffered by the claimant as functional disability. By fixing Rs.6,500/- per
month as his notional income, the Tribunal had added another 40% towards
future prospects and had applied a multiplier of 18 and arrived at a net sum
of Rs,7,87,000/- as compensation under the head of loss of earning power.
After adding the compensation payable on other conventional heads, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tribunal passed an award for Rs.8,88,000/-. This is now under challenge.
5.The learned counsel for the appellant challenges the Award on three
grounds;
a) that the Tribunal was wrong in fixing the entire blame of the accident
on the driver of the lorry and ;
b) that the Tribunal ought not to have assessed the disability of the driver
as functional disability;
c) that the interest was awarded at 9% when the market interest was far
below then 9%.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the claimant came
out with a candid case that the lorry was moving and that it was driven
recklessly. Ext.R.2 sketch shows that the accident had taken place on a
express highway with four lanes, and that the scene of occurrence was the
far extreme on the left hand side of the road. The Tribunal while considering
the point as to whether the offending lorry should be treated as a stationary
vehicle, or must be considered as a moving vehicle, had come to the
conclusion that the parking lamps were not lit, implying thereby that the
Tribunal has accepted the case of the insurance company. If the lorry is a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
stationary vehicle, then negligence must necessarily be entirely attributed to
the claimant/first respondent. Turning to quantum, the learned counsel for
the appellant submitted that the injury should not be treated as a functional
disability.
7.1 Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimant/first respondent
submitted that even if the case of the appellant is accepted, then it is
mandatory for the driver of the lorry to switch on the parking lamps, since
the time of accident is around 04.15 a.m, and unless there are parking
lamps, it would be impossible for any other road user to spot a parked lorry.
Therefore, the Tribunal's approach in fixing the entire negligence on the
driver of the lorry cannot be faulted.
7.2 Turning to the quantum awarded, the learned counsel for the first
respondent submitted that it is not in dispute that the claimant is a driver by
avocation and inasmuch as the injury was to his legs which includes petella,
he no more can drive the vehicle effectively. Therefore, the Tribunal was yet
again correct in its approach in treating the disability of the claimant as
functional disability. He proceeded to add that the monthly income which
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the Tribunal has notionally fixed for the victim itself is on the lower side. He
also relied on the ratio in Archit Saini and another Vs. Oriental Insurance
Co.Ltd., and others [2018(1) TN MAC 544 (SC)]
8. Admittedly, the accident had taken place at the wee hours of 06.05.2009,
to be precise at about 4.30 a.m. And going by the case of the insurance
company, the offending vehicle was parked and was stationary at the time of
accident. Even if this version of the accident is considered as accepted, then
the issue is whether the parking lamps were at least switched on. Under
Sec.122 of the M.V.Act, parking a motor vehicle in a public road, no matter
which part of the day, is considered as an obstruction as would cause
inconvenience to the other road users and prohibits it. Sec.126 of the Act
prohibits parking a motor vehicle unless a licensed driver is there in the seat.
Here is a situation, a lorry is parked in darkness without any evidence that
the parking lamps were switched on. And, the driver of the offending lorry
was not examined to prove the contra. Therefore, the negligence on the part
of the driver of the offending lorry is evident.
9. The next point if whether any contributory negligence can be attributed to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the claimant? In determining if the victim of the accident himself/herself
has contributed to its occurrence with his/her negligence, many factors need
to be considered, but the foremost is whether the stationary vehicle is visible
to the driver of the oncoming vehicle. Here is a situation where the
offending lorry was parked when it was still dark and unless it is established
it is easily visible to another user of a motor vehicle, contributory negligence
cannot be presumed. Different consideration would have prevailed if the
accident had taken place in day light. In conclusion, this Court affirms the
finding of the Tribunal and holds that the driver of the offending lorry was
totally negligent.
10. The next aspect is about rate of interest. Ordinarily this court awards
7.5% p.a whereas in this case the Tribunal has awarded 9% p.a. on the
compensation amount. The Tribunal has fixed the notional income of the
victim at a paltry Rs.6,500/- p.m., and if only the claimant had filed any
cross objection, it would have merited serious consideration. This court now
treats the additional 1.5% interest over and above 7.5% as part of the
compensation without any interest running on the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed and the
judgment and decree passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Special Sub Judge, MACT) at Krishnagiri, dated 22.3.2019 in
MCOP.No.248 of 2014 is confirmed. However, there is no order as to
costs. Consequently, the connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.
30.11.2023
Tsg/ds
Index : Yes/No
To
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Special Sub Judge, MACT) at Krishnagiri,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
N.SESHASAYEE.J.,
tsg/ds
Pre-delivery Judgment in
C.M.A.No.919 of 2022 &
30.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
