Sarathkumar vs G.Nagarani
2024 Latest Caselaw 15349 Mad

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 15349 Mad
Judgement Date : 8 August, 2024

Madras High Court

Sarathkumar vs G.Nagarani on 8 August, 2024

                                                                    C.M.A.(MD) No.422 of 2021


                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                             DATED : 08.08.2024

                                                    CORAM

                                  THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

                                         C.M.A.(MD) No.422 of 2021


                    Sarathkumar
                    S/o.Selvaraj                                          ... Appellant

                                                      Vs.

                    1.G.Nagarani
                      W/o.Ganesh Kumar

                    2.T.Govindaraj
                      S/o.Thangavel

                    3.The Branch Manager,
                      IFFCO TOKYO General Insurance
                           Company Ltd.,
                      Madurai, Madurai Town,
                      Bye Pass Road, Ponmeni,
                      Chandragandhi Nagar,
                      Pritham Plaza Complex.                              ... Respondents

                    Prayer:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
                    Vehicles Act, 1988 praying to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated
                    11.12.2014 made in M.C.O.P.No.194 of 2014 on the file of the Motor
                    Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal Sub Court), Dindigul.



                    _____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                    Page No. 1 of 8
                                                                          C.M.A.(MD) No.422 of 2021




                                    For Appellant      : Mr.A.Jayaramachandran

                                    For R2             : No appearance

                                    For R3             : Mr.V.Sakthivel


                                                    JUDGMENT

The claimant has filed this instant appeal challenging the Tribunal's

finding that the first respondent, the owner of the vehicle, is liable for

paying compensation.

2. The appellant/claimant had filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.

194 of 2014 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal Sub

Court), Dindigul stating that on 13.01.2011, at about 6:30 p.m., while he

was traveling with others in an auto-rickshaw bearing Registration

No.TN-57-P-6886 insured with the third respondent Insurance Company

and owned by the second respondent, the driver of the tractor bearing

Registration No. TN-57-K-0097 came from the opposite direction in a

rash and negligent manner and collided with the auto-rickshaw, as a result

of which, the appellant/claimant suffered multiple grievous injuries.

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

3. The first and second respondents had remained exparte before

the Tribunal. The third respondent Insurance Company had filed counter

affidavit stating that the accident took place only due to the rash and

negligent driving of the tractor's driver and not due to any negligence on

the part of the auto-rickshaw driver and therefore, they are not liable to

pay compensation.

4. Before the Tribunal, the appellant/claimant had examined himself

as P.W.1 and the Doctor who treated him as P.W.2 and marked four

documents as Exs.P1 to P4. The third respondent Insurance Company had

examined its officer as R.W.1.

5. The Tribunal after taking into consideration of the oral and

documentary evidences held that the accident took place only due to the

rash and negligent driving of the tractor's driver owned by the first

respondent and directed the first respondent to pay the compensation of

Rs.77,000/- together with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of

claim petition till the date of realization and costs, to the

appellant/claimant.

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

6. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submitted that the

Tribunal ought not to have fixed the entire liability on the driver of the

tractor and ought to have also fixed liability on the driver of the auto-

rickshaw insured with the third respondent Insurance Company; that the

compensation awarded by the Tribunal is meagre.

7. The learned counsel for the third respondent Insurance Company

submitted that the evidence of the appellant/claimant who was examined

as P.W.1 would itself show that the accident took place only due to the

negligence of the driver of the tractor and therefore, the Tribunal has

rightly fixed the entire liability on the first respondent, the owner of the

tractor and no interference is called for.

8. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions.

9. The questions involved in the instant appeal are as follows:-

i. Whether the Tribunal has awarded a just and reasonable compensation to the appellant/claimant?

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

ii. Whether the Tribunal is right in fixing the entire liability on the driver of the tractor owned by the first respondent and directing the first respondent to pay the compensation?

10. As regards the first question on the quantum of compensation,

this Court, on perusal of the award, finds that the Tribunal assessed the

functional disability of the appellant/claimant at 20% and awarded a sum

of Rs.60,000/- (20 x Rs.3,000/-) under the head of partial permanent

disability. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal is just and reasonable in

view of the nature of injury suffered by the appellant/claimant and the

nature of evidence let in by the appellant/claimant. The compensation

awarded under the other heads, namely pain and suffering, extra

nourishment, attendant charges, and transport charges, is also just and

reasonable. Therefore, no interference is called for.

11. As regards the second question on liability, this Court is of the

view that the claim petition and the evidence of P.W.1, the

appellant/claimant would show that there was no fault on the side of the

driver of the auto-rickshaw. The relevant portion of the evidence of P.W.

1, the appellant/claimant reads as under:-

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

“... vdJ epUgz thf;F%yj;jpy; vjpNute;j buhf;lH Xl;LdH ehd; gazk; nra;j Ml;Nlhtpd;

                                  kPJ mjpNtfkhfTk; ftdf;FiwthfTk; te;J
                                  Nkhjpajhf $wpAs;Nsd;.      Ml;Nlh Xl;LdH kPJ
                                  jtW              ,Ug;gjhf                ehd;
                                  $wtpy;iy.      ,og;gPl;Lj;njhifAk;    buhf;lH