Madras High Court
United India Insurance Company Limited vs P.Manimaran ... 1St on 5 January, 2024
C.M.A.(MD).No.1014 of 2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 05.01.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
C.M.A.(MD)No.1014 of 2014
United India Insurance Company Limited,
Divisional Office – 1,
Contonment,
Trichy – 1. ... Appellant/2nd Respondent
-vs-
1. P.Manimaran ... 1st Respondent/Petitioner
2. D.Veerasekaran ... 2nd Respondent/ 1st Respondent
(2nd respondent ex parte before the
Tribunal)
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 08.01.2014 in
M.C.O.P.No.1215 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
(Special Subordinate Judge) Tiruchirappalli.
For Appellant : Mr.V.J.Kumaravel
For Respondent : Mr.Prabhakaran
for Mr.N.Sudhagar Nagaraj – for R1
: No appearance - for R2
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.1014 of 2014
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant as
against the order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special
Subordinate Judge) Tiruchirappalli in M.C.O.P.No.1215 of 2013 dated
08.01.2014, wherein, the first respondent herein filed a petition for granting
compensation as against the second respondent and the petitioner herein.
2. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.96,000/- (Rupees Ninety Six
Thousand only) towards compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% per
annum. As against the award passed by the Tribunal, the present appeal has
been preferred by the second respondent/Insurance Company.
3. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties hereinafter will
be referred to as per their status/ranking in the Tribunal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. The brief facts of the petition averments are:
The petitioner was aged about 11 years at the time of accident. On
27.11.2004 at about 08.00 hours, when the petitioner was walking from South
to North near at River Bridge, Kulakudi Village, TVS 50 Vehicle bearing
Registration No.28-H-5099 belonging to the first respondent driven by its
rider in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against him on his behind. Due
to its impact, he was thrown off on the road and sustained injuries. The
petitioner was taken to the nearby private clinic and given first aid and
treatment. Due to non-restoration of injuries, he was taken to AGM
Government Hospital, Trichy, and admitted as inpatient and taken treatment
as inpatient for a period of 10 days and as outpatient for more than a year.
Hence, the petitioner has filed MCOP seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-
(Rupees Two Lakhs only)
5. The brief facts and counter filed by the second respondent are as
follows:
The respondents denied the averments made in the petition. The parents
of the minor petitioner, the first respondent and the alleged rider of the bike
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
have colluded and fabricated a false case as if the first respondent vehicle was
involved in that alleged accident. The second respondent is no way connected
with the claimant. The accident is said to have happened on 27.11.2004, but
the injured petitioner was not admitted in the Government Hospital
immediately after the occurrence. He was admitted in the Trichy Government
Head Quarters Hospital. The first respondent was residing at Namakkal, but
the alleged accident had happened in a remote village of Trichy District. The
petitioner did not lodge a complaint before the police immediately after the
occurrence. They lodged a complaint before the police. They did not give any
proper explanation for the inordinate delay in lodging the FIR. The case is not
a genuine and it is a fraudulent claim. Hence, the petition is liable to be
dismissed.
6. In order to prove the case of the petitioner, the petitioner has
examined P.W.1 and P.W.2 and marked exhibits Exs.P.1 to P.6 and on the side
of the respondents R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and Exs.R.1 to R.9 were
marked.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. After evaluating the oral and documentary evidence adduced on
either side, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.96,000/- (Rupees Ninety
Six Thousand only) towards compensation with interest at 7.5% p.a.
8. As against the award passed by the Tribunal, the second
respondent/Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal on various
grounds.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/second respondent
contended that the 2nd respondent/first respondent vehicle did not involve in
the said accident. The appellant/ second respondent is not responsible for any
claim. The owner of the vehicle and the parents of the claimant have
collusively created documents as if the accident was occurred due to the
negligent driving of the 2nd respondent/1st respondent vehicle. Already the
appellant/2nd respondent had lodged a complaint before the the concerned
police and they have not taken any action. Therefore, the award passed by the
Tribunal is liable to be set aside by allowing this appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/claimant
would contend that on 27.11.2004, at about 08.00 hours, the claimant was
walking from South to North near at River Bridge, Kulakudi Village, the
second respondent vehicle came in a rash and negligent manner dashed Minor
Manimaran on his behind and thereby, he sustained injuries and was taken to
the nearby private hospital and given treatment. Thereafter, the first
respondent was taken to AGM Government Hospital, Trichy for further
treatment. The accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent
driving of the second respondent's vehicle driver. An FIR has been registered
as against the rider of the second respondent vehicle. Thereby, the Tribunal
after taking into consideration of all these aspects, awarded the compensation.
Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
11. After hearing both sides and upon perusing the documents
including the order of the Tribunal, the point for determination in this appeal
is:
(i) Whether the appeal is liable to be allowed or not?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
12. In this case, the appellant denied the involvement of vehicle of the
second respondent in the accident. In order to prove the case of the first
respondent/ petitioner, the first respondent has examined P.W.1 and P.W.2 and
marked Exs.P.1 to P.6. On the side of respondents they examined R.W.1 and
R.W.2 and marked Exs. R1 to R9.
13. It is admitted by both parties that the driver of the vehicle admitted
the offence before the criminal Court and paid fine amount. Therefore, the
first respondent/petitioner proved the negligence and involvement of the
vehicle bearing registration No.TN-28-H-5099 in the accident.
14. Per contra on the side of respondents they examined R.W.1 and
R.W.2. R.W.1 is a Private Investigation Officer appointed by the Insurance
Company and he produced Exs.R3 to R5. Already the proper Investigation
Agency investigated the case and filed final report and the competent Court
also found guilty based on the admission made by the accused and also
convicted. While so, the evidence of R.W.1 who is not a competent persons to
investigate the case is not acceptable one. The Tribunal also after elaborate
discussion correctly came to a fair conclusion.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
15. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the document
Ex.R5 – Confession Statement given by Veerasekaran/second respondent. The
said document Ex.R5 is in admissible on evidence and the same is not in
accordance with law. The first respondent/petitioner has not taken steps to
examine the owner of the vehicle and the Tribunal also discussed about the
admissibility of the documents and evidence.
16. The first respondent/petitioner proved that the vehicle of the second
respondent/first respondent had involved in the accident. The documents
would show only the involvement of the vehicle and the appellant failed to
adduce sufficient evidence to rebut the evidence of the claimant's side.
Therefore, the contention of the appellant to that regard is not acceptable.
17. In view of the above discussions, this Court finds no merits in the
appeal and it deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal is dismissed, by confirming the order passed by the Tribunal in
M.C.O.P.No.1215 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
(Special Subordinate Judge) Tiruchirappalli. The appellant is directed to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
deposits the entire amount within a period of two months from the date of
this order. It is stated that already 50% of the claim amount has been
deposited and the same was also withdrawn by the claimant. The remaining
amount shall be deposited by the appellant within a period of two months
from the date of copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
05.01.2024
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
ebsi
To
1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
(Special Subordinate Judge)
Tiruchirappalli.
2. The Section Officer,
Vernacular Records,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
P.DHANABAL,J.
ebsi
05.01.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
