Madras High Court
Ramasamy vs The Managing Director on 5 January, 2024
C.M.A.(MD).No.332 of 2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 27.11.2023
PRONOUNCED ON : 05.01.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
C.M.A.(MD)No.332 of 2014
1.Ramasamy
2.Kalaimani
3.Amirthavalli
4.Rajaletchumi
5.Rajeswari ... Appellants
Vs.
The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
Thirumayam Road,
Pudukkottai District. ... Respondent
PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated
20.03.2013 rendered in M.C.O.P.No.406 of 2012 on the file of the
learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Court),
Pudukkottai.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.332 of 2014
For A1 : Ms.K.Mahalakshmi
For A2 to A4 : Mr.S.J.Muthiah
For Respondent : Mr.A.V.B.Krishnakanthi
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed as against the
judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Additional District Judge), at Pudukkottai in M.C.O.P.No.406
of 2012 dated 20.03.2013 seeking to set aside the judgment passed by the
learned Tribunal.
2.For the sake of convenience, the parties are addressed herein as
per the rank in M.C.O.P.No.406 of 2012.
3.The brief facts leading to the filing of the Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal is as follows:-
The petitioners 1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased namely
Ramesh and the petitioners 3 to 5 are the sisters of the deceased. The
deceased Ramesh was aged 21 years and was working as Centering
worker. On 21.07.2010 at about 08.15 p.m., when the deceased Ramesh
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
was riding the motor cycle bearing registration No.TN-55-J-6111 along
the Alangudi to Melakottai road near Melakottai Arch, a bus bearing
registration No.TN-55-N-0162 dashed against the motorcycle. As the
result of which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and he died.
Following which, he was taken to Alangudi Government Hospital and
from where he was taken to Pudukottai Headquarters Hospital and then
he was admitted at Geethanjali hospital as in patient on 22.07.2010.
Thereafter, he died on 23.07.2010 at about 05.45 p.m. Claiming
compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles
Act, the petitioners have filed M.C.O.P.No.406 of 2012.
4.The sole respondent is the Managing Director of Tamil Nadu
State Transport Corporation. The respondent has filed a counter dated
20.06.2011 before the learned Tribunal refuting all the allegation set out
in claim petition and categorically stated that only the legal heirs are
entitled for claiming compensation. The petitioners 3 to 5 are only sisters
to the unmarried deceased person and they cannot be considered as
dependants of the deceased, since they were already married. That apart
it is further submitted that the petitioners failed to implead the owner and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the insurer of the two wheeler involved in the accident bearing
registration No.TN-55-J-6111 and that apart the deceased person
consumed alcohol while driving and a criminal case which was registered
against the driver of the respondent was closed as 'mistake of fact' after
proper investigation by the jurisdictional police.
5.Three witnesses on the side of the petitioners P.W.1 to P.W.3
were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 were marked and R.W.1 and R.W.2
were examined and Ex.R1 was marked on the side of the respondent. The
learned Tribunal had framed three issues and on examining the
deposition of the evidences adduced by both the witnesses on both the
sides and documentary evidence placed before it and after considering
the arguments putforth by both the parties came to a conclusion that the
accident happened only due to the rash and negligent driving of the
deceased Ramesh who actually drove the two wheeler and caused the
accident and ultimately held that the tort feasor himself cannot claim
compensation and on that basis, the learned Tribunal dismissed the
M.C.O.P.No.406 of 2012.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6.Challenging the same, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been
filed by the appellants/petitioners/claimants.
7.In the instant case, the deceased person was driving a two
wheeler bearing registration No.TN-55-J-6111 on 21.07.2010 along the
Alangudi to Melakottai road and at the time of driving, he was under the
influence of alcohol. Though it is the case of the petitioners that the bus
bearing registration No.TN-55-N-0162 belonging to the respondent
dashed against the motorcycle and caused the accident, on a critical
perusal of the materials available on record, the truth transpires in a
different way. A case was registered in Crime No.288 of 2010 on the file
of Alangudi police station and the same was investigated and the
Investigating Officer had submitted a final report and the same was
marked as Ex.R1, which would reveal that in the said final report, the
case as against the driver of the Transport Corporation has been closed as
'mistake of fact'. As per said report, it is only the deceased who rode the
motorcycle and dashed against the stopped bus and caused the accident
himself. He is alone responsible for the accident.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8.The driver of the respondent Corporation was examined as R.W.
2, who deposed in his evidence that, on 21.07.2010 when he was driving
the bus from Alangudi to Melakottai, while the bus was stopped for
unloading and loading passengers at Melakottai bus stop, the deceased
came under the influence of alcohol in his motorcycle and dashed against
the back side of the bus and as a result of which, he fell down and
sustained injuries himself. The case is not actually that the bus dashed
against the motorcycle.
9.That apart a perusal of Ex.P6, the accident register would reveal
that the deceased only rode the two wheeler and dashed against the
backside of the bus. Further the accident register, Ex.P6 also reveals that
the breath of the deceased had the smell of alcohol. The deceased himself
is a tort feasor who is under the influence of alcohol. The learned
Tribunal came to a conclusion that the respondent is not liable to pay any
compensation and hence, without dwelling into question of quantum of
compensation, the learned Tribunal held that the petitioners were not
entitled to any compensation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10.Under Section 163 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the owner cannot
be both the claimant and recipient. Merely own use of motorcycle by the
owner/borrower/permissive user does not entitle such persons to
maintain Section 163A petition as the same is against the insurer of
own/borrowed vehicle. The owner/borrower/permissive user are not third
parties in relation to their own/borrowed vehicles and hence, not covered
by the statutory insurance under Section 147. Hence, the
owner/borrower/permissive user would be limited to personal accidental
coverage if any strictly as per contract of insurance covering the
borrowed vehicle.
11.However in the instant case, the deceased driver of the two
wheeler involved in the accident himself was responsible for the accident
which happened on 21.07.2010 due to his rash and negligent driving and
he had himself driven the motorcycle recklessly under the influence of
alcohol and has dashed behind the bus bearing registration No.TN-55-
N-0162. Fully sticking to the decision of the learned Tribunal that the tort
feasor is not entitled for any compensation, I am not inclined to interfere
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
Mrn
with the order passed by the learned Tribunal.
12.Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
05.01.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
Mrn
To
1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
(Additional District Judge), Pudukkottai.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R. Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
05.01.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
