Madras High Court
Srinivasan vs S.Balaji ... 1St on 9 January, 2024
C.M.A(MD)No.1477 of 2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 09.01.2024
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL
C.M.A(MD)No.1477 of 2013
and
M.P(MD)No.1 of 2013
Srinivasan ... Appellant/1st Respondent
Vs.
1.S.Balaji ... 1st Respondent/Petitioner
2.K.Muthuvel ... 2nd Respondent/2nd Respondent
Prayer : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.59 of
2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial
Magistrate), Tirunelveli, dated 14.03.2013.
For Appellant : Mr.B.Jameel Arasu
for Mr.S.Paul Murugesan
R-1 : Dismissed
For R-2 : Mr.V.Sasi Kumar
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.1477 of 2013
JUDGMENT
The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed as against
the order passed in M.C.O.P.No.59 of 2009 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Tirunelveli, wherein
the first respondent herein filed a petition for compensation as against the
appellant and second respondent herein.
2. The Tribunal has passed an award directing the appellant herein
to pay a sum of Rs.2,24,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum
from the date of petition till the date of realisation amount and also after
payment made to the claimants, the same can be recovered from the
second respondent herein. As against the order passed by the Tribunal, the
first respondent has filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
3. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties herein after
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 as follows:
On 22.07.2008, the petitioner while riding a two wheeler bearing
Registration No.TN 09 S 1504 near Palayamkottai Market, the first
respondent vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 69 B 7952 came in a rash
and negligent manner and dashed against the two wheeler. Thereby the
petitioner sustained injury. The accident took place due to the negligence
of the first respondent vehicle driver, thereby filed the petition for
claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.
5. The first respondent had filed a counter stating that the first
respondent sold the said vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 69 B 7952 to
one Siva Mariappan on 09.05.2007 itself. Therefore, on the date of
accident, the first respondent is not the owner of the vehicle. Further the
accident took place only due to the rash and negligence on the part of the
rider of the two wheeler. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. In order to prove the case of the petitioner, the petitioner had
examined P.W 1 and P.W 2 and marked Exhibits P.1 to P.9 and on the side
of the respondents, R.W.1 was examined and marked Exhibit R.1.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. After evaluating the oral and documentary evidences adduced on
either side, the Tribunal has passed an award as against the second
respondent to pay a sum of Rs.2,24,000/- and thereafter, the second
respondent can recover the same from the first respondent.
8. Being aggrieved by the above said order, the present Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the first respondent owner of the vehicle on
various grounds.
9. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would contend
that the appellant was the previous owner of the vehicle bearing
registration No.TN 69 B 7952 and he had sold the vehicle to one Siva
Mariappan on 09.05.2007. But the Tribunal has fastened a liability as
against the appellant / first respondent without considering that the said
vehicle was sold much earlier to the date of accident. Therefore, the order
passed by the Tribunal as against the first respondent is liable to be set
aside. Further the Tribunal has awarded the excess amount when the
petitioner was only sustained a simple injury and no any permanent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
disability to the petitioner. However, the award passed by the Tribunal is
too high.
10. The learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent /
claimant would contend that the accident took place due to the rash and
negligent driving of the jeep driver and the same has not been denied by
the appellant and the appellant only filed an appeal as against the lability.
Though the first respondent / appellant has sold the property on the date of
accident, the name transfer was not effected. Therefore, on the date of
accident, the first respondent is the owner of the vehicle, since the RC
book was in the name of the first respondent. Therefore, the Tribunal after
taking into consideration of the injuries sustained by the petitioner,
awarded a sum of Rs.2,24,000/- as against the respondent and the
respondent after satisfying the amount can recover the same from the
respondent. Therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is in order and this
appeal is liable to be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11. The learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent /
second respondent would contend that the accident took place only due to
the negligence on the part of the rider of the two wheeler and this
petitioner on the date of accident drove the vehicle in a slow speed and
cautious manner in spite of that the rider of the driver dashed against the
jeep and invited the accident. Already the Tribunal has dismissed the
petition as against the second respondent since he is the only driver of the
vehicle.
12. This Court 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?
13. In this case, the first respondent herein being injured filed a
claim petition as against the appellant and second respondent herein for
compensation. The Tribunal after analyzing the evidence adduced on both
the sides awarded a sum of Rs.2,24,000/- by directing the first respondent
to pay the award amount with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the date of petition till the date of realisation and thereafter, recover the
same from the second respondent herein. According to the appellant,
already he had sold the vehicle which involved in the accident to the
second respondent herein (i.e.,) on 09.05.2007. The second respondent
also admitted the purchase of the vehicle from the appellant. On the date
of accident, the second respondent is the owner of the vehicle and the first
respondent is not the owner of the vehicle. However, the appellant
admitted that on the date of accident, the registration certificate was not
transferred either in the name of the first respondent or in the name of the
second respondent. On the date of accident, the name transfer was not
effected and the registration certificate was stood in the name of the
appellant. It is a well settled law that unless the name transfer was effected
in the registration certificate, the first respondent has to be treated as
owner of vehicle and thereby, the Tribunal after taking into consideration
of all the aspects correctly fastened the liability as against the appellant /
first respondent and the same is correct, thereby, this Court has no warrant
to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. As far as the quantum is
concerned, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- for 1% of
disability and also awarded fair compensation and also on other heads, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
award amount awarded by the Tribunal is fair and reasonable. Hence, this
Court has no warrant to interfere with the order of the Tribunal.
14. In view of the above said discussions, this Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal has no merits and deserves to be dismissed. Already the appellant
has only deposited Rs.25,000/-. The appellant / first respondent is directed
to deposit the entire award amount within a period of two (2) months from
the date of this order after deducting the award amount already deposited
by him as ordered by the Tribunal. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal stands dismissed and the impugned award, dated 14.03.2013 on
the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate),
Tirunelveli is confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petition stands closed.
09.01.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
BTR
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Chief Judicial Magistrate),
Tirunelveli.
2.The Section Officer,
Vernacular Record Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
P. DHANABAL, J.
BTR
09.01.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
