Madras High Court
The Branch Manager vs Kala on 11 September, 2024
Author: V.Bhavani Subbaroyan
Bench: V.Bhavani Subbaroyan
C.M.A(MD)No.83 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated :11.09.2024
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
and
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN
C.M.A(MD)No.83 of 2019
and
C.M.P.(MD).No.852 of 2019
The Branch Manager,
New India Assurance Company Limited,
East Coast Chambers,
92, G.N.Chetty Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai-17. : Appellant/2nd Respondent
Vs.
1.Kala
2.Deepika
3.Mownika
4.Aravind : Respondents 1 to 4
(Minor 4th respondent is declared as Major and guardianship of his mother(R1) is
discharged vide Court order dated 16.07.2021 made in C.M.P.(MD).No.6329 of 2020
in C.M.A.(MD).No.83 of 2019).
5.Jeya
6.Sathiyavani
1/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.83 of 2019
7.Cholamandalam M.S.General Insurance Company Limited,
Dindigul Main Road, SRI ENT Hospital,
Keelavasal,
Madurai-625 010. : Respondents 5 to 7
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173
of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to set aside the Fair and Decreetal order in
M.C.O.P.No.721 of 2014 dated 29.06.2018 on the file of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District and Special Court,
Pudukkottai and allow the appeal with costs.
For Appellant : Mr.J.S.Murali
For R1, R2 & R4 : Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian
For R7 : Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was made by K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN.J.]
The Second respondent in M.C.O.P.No.721 of 2014 on the file of
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District and Special Court,
Pudukkottai, filed this appeal, challenging the award passed in the said
M.C.O.P.No.721 of 2014 filed by the respondents 1 to 4 herein.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2.Facts of the case:
The Fifth Respondent namely, Jeya is the owner of the car bearing
Registration No.TN-49 AT-0786. On 31.05.2014 at 11.15 p.m., the said
vehicle was taken by her father Mahendran, along with his brother-in-law
deceased/Neelakandan towards Trichy to Peravoorani Road. At that time,
near Vadakadu AV Petrol bunk, the Mini Lorry, namely the insured lorry
bearing Registration No.TN-55 AE-2460, was driven by the driver in a
rash and negligent manner and dashed against the car, thereby the
deceased sustained injuries. After treatment for 26 days, he died.
Vadakadu Police Station registered a case in Crime No. 69 of 2014
against the lorry driver insured with the appellant. Thereafter, the wife of
the deceased and his legal heirs filed MCOP No.721 of 2014 stating that
the accident happened due to the negligence of both the drivers. The
deceased Neelakandan was doing Coconut business earning more than
Rs.20,000/- per month and claimed compensation of Rs.35,00,000/-
(Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs Only). The Income certificate/Ex.P.16 was
marked and the Vice President of Cultivation and Marketing of Coconuts
Association namely, P.W.3 was examined. P.W.3 stated that he is the vice
president of Peravoorani Coconut Farmer Association. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
deceased/Neelakandan was in the said business for 10 years and earned
more than Rs.20,000/- per month.
3.The appellant insurance company filed a counter denying the
negligence on the part of insured lorry and shifting the negligence on the
part of the car driver. Hence,appellant seeks for exoneration from the
liability and also disputed the income of the deceased. The insurance
company, who insured the car also filed a counter stating that the accident
happened only due to the negligence of mini-lorry driver, and pleaded for
exoneration from liability against the car driver.
4. During the course of the trial, the claimant proved their claim,
and examined P.W.1 to 4 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.19. On the side of the
respondent/appellant insurance company, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.R1
was marked.
5.The learned trial Judge considered the entire evidence, more
particularly, the evidence of R.W.1, who drove the mini-lorry on the date
of the occurrence, who “pleaded guilty” and fixed the liability upon the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
appellant insured vehicle namely the mini-lorry. In the said
circumstances, the insurance company filed this appeal challenging the
fixing of negligence on the part of the lorry driver in spite of the
pleadings that both drivers of the vehicles were responsible for the
accident.
6.The learned counsel for the appellant reiterated grounds filed in
the affidavit stating that the “plea of guilty before the criminal Court and
conviction is not a circumstance to fix the entire liability on the appellant
against the pleadings. The learned counsel further submitted that without
any sufficient income proof, the learned trial Judge erroneously fixed the
monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 20,000/- per month and hence, he
seeks for the reduction of the compensation awarded by the Court below.
The learned trial Judge erred in relying on the result of the criminal case
in these proceedings and hence he seeks for the interference in the award.
7.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the
claimants/respondents 1 to 4 submitted that when there is a “plea of
guilty” and conviction was passed in the criminal case, the Judgement can
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
be marked to show that there was admission relating to the negligence. In
the said circumstances, the said admission has to be properly explained
by the driver of the said vehicle. In this case, even though R.W.1 was
examined, no explanation was given by R.W.1 under what circumstances,
he pleaded guilty and paid the fine. In the said circumstances, he seeks for
the affirmation of the finding relating to the negligence on the part of the
driver. The learned counsel further submitted that P.W.3 was examined
and also Ex.P.16 was marked and the specific pleading was that the
deceased was doing coconut business. Hence, the learned trial Judge
fixed Rs.20,000/- as monthly income and there is no reason to differ with
the same without any contra evidence adduced on the side of the
Insurance company. Hence, he seeks for non interference in the award
passed by the Court below. Even otherwise, he said that the learned trial
Judge without considering the future prospect granted only Rs.20,000/- as
monthly income. If future prospects are added, there can not be reduction
of the amount. In the said circumstances, he seeks for the confirmation of
the award.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8.We have considered rival submissions and also perused the
evidence and the impugned Judgement and also precedents relied upon
both parties.
9.Whether the tribunal is correct in fixing the negligence on the
part of the driver of the offending vehicle, who had pleaded guilty before
the criminal Court?
9.1.Whether the award granted by the tribunal is just and
reasonable?
10. R.W.1 is the driver of the appellant insurance company's
insured vehicle. The criminal case was registered against him and a final
report was filed against him and “he paid the fine after plea of guilty”.
Even though R.W.1 was examined and he pleaded guilty, he did not
properly explain the admission of rash and negligent driving. This Court
finds no explanation on the side of R.W.1 for the above admission. The
Honourable Supreme Court, this Court and various High Courts and even
the English Courts have held that if a party pleaded guilty before the
Court, the same is admissible as a admission to the fact of the case, unless
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the same was explained otherwise by him.
11.In the said circumstances, the following judgments of the
Honorable Supreme Court and our High Court are to be considered:-
11.1.1 In the case of Seth Ramdayal Jat, Vs. Laxmi Prasad reported
in 2009 11 Scc 545.
11.1.2 In the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Limited Vs.
K.Balasubramanian and others reported in 2008 ACJ 2553.
11.1.3. In the case of Vinobabai and others Vs. Karnataka State
Road Transport Corporation and Another, reported in 1979
ACJ 282.
11.1.4. In the case of Stupple Vs. Royal Insurance Co. Ltd., and in the
case of Stupple Vs. Same.
11.1.5. In the case of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Vs.
P.Shanthi,dated 28.04.2017 in C.M.A.No.1369 of 2017.
11.1.6. In the case of The Managing Director Vs. Anju Rajan, dated
05.06.2017, in C.M.A.(MD).Nos.1392 to 1396 of 2017.
11.1.7. In the case of L.N.Prakash Vs. United India Insurance Co.
and others reported in 1995 2 TAC 339.
11.1.8. In the case of Sukhinder Anand Vs. Khaza Vazir Ali(Minor)
and others reported in 1994 2 TAC 593.
11.1.9. In the case of Govind Singh and others vs. A.S.Kallasam and
another reported in 1975 ACJ 215.
11.1.10 In the case of Sankaran and others Vs. Valliammal and
others reported in MANU/TN/0350/1987.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The above judgments have held that when the accused
pleaded guilty, the criminal Court judgment is admissible.
The fact of negligence was admitted by plea of guilty. In
the said circumstances, the same has to be properly
explained by the concerned person. Otherwise, the said
admission relating to the factum of negligence can very
well relied by the Tribunal to render the findings on
negligence as against the driver of the vehicle.
11.2. When the accused pleaded guilty by admitting his rashness
and negligence and caused accident before the Criminal
Court during the prosecution of the corresponding criminal
offence. The same is admissible as fact to prove the issue of
negligence in the civil proceedings unless he has properly
explained the said admission to the satisfaction Court.
In the case of Nettleship Vs. Weston, reported in
11.3. 1972 ACJ 115, Lord Denning has held as follows:
“5...The conviction is admissible in civil
proceedings as prima facie evidence of
negligence...”
11.4. In the case of The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. K.
Balasubramanian, reported in 2007 SCC OnLine Mad 660 Division
Bench of this Court has held as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10. ... It is a well settled proposition of law that
the judgments of the Criminal Courts are neither
binding on the Civil Court/Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal nor relevant in a Civil Case or a claim for
compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, except
for the limited purpose of showing that there was a
criminal prosecution which ended in conviction or
acquittal. But there is an exception to the general
rule. When an accused pleads guilty and is convicted
based on his admission, the judgment of the Criminal
Court becomes admissible and relevant in civil
proceedings and proceedings before the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, not because it is a
judgment of the Criminal Court, but as a document
containing an admission. Of course, admissions are
not conclusive proof of the facts admitted therein. But
unless and until they are proved to be incorrect or
false by the person against whom the admissions are
sought to be used as evidence, the same shall be the
best piece of evidence.
11.5. In the case of Seth Ramdayal Jat v. Laxmi Prasad, reported
in (2009) 11 SCC 545 at page 553, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as
follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
21. The admission of the appellant was recorded in
writing. While he was deposing in the suit, he was
confronted with the question as to whether he had
admitted his guilt and pleaded guilty of the charges
framed. He did so. Having, thus, accepted that he had
made an admission in the criminal case, the same was
admissible in evidence. He could have resiled
therefrom or explained away his admission. He offered
an explanation that he was wrongly advised by the
counsel to do so. The said explanation was not
accepted by the trial court. It was considered to be an
afterthought. His admission in the civil proceeding
was admissible in evidence.
11.6.In the case of Govind Singh and others Vs. A.S.Kailasam
and another reported in AIR 1975 Mad 65 this Court has held as
follows:
8. ... More significant is the fact that, when R.W. 1 was
prosecuted for an offence under S. 337 I.P.C., he has
voluntarily pleaded guilty to the charge framed
against him. After having admitted before the Criminal
Court that the accident took place due to his rash and
negligent driving of the car, there is hardly any force
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
in the present contention of R.W. 1 that he did not
drive the car rashly or negligently and that he was not
to be blamed for the accident it is no doubt seen that
R.W. 1 has attempted to reconcile the conflicting
positions by projecting a story that his plea of guilt
before the Criminal Court was not one of truth, but
was one of the convenience, viz., to avoid making
frequent visits to the Court to defend the case. This
explanation is hardly convincing and, at any rate,
cannot be allowed to be successfully projected by R.W.
1. An admission against bis interest made by R.W. 1
either before the Tribunal or elsewhere, has got to be
taken into account in rendering a decision on the
relative stands taken by the parties in the controversy.
11.7 Pribhidas v. B.N. Renuka, AIR 1983 Kar 186
11. This Court has ruled in the
case, Vinobabai v. K.S.R.T.C., (1979) 1 Kant LJ 257
that when the driver admits his guilt before the
Criminal Court and is convicted, it would establish
prima facie that he was guilty of rash and negligent
driving and we have pointed out above that the driver
did not care to enter the witness-box and offer any
explanation The admission, therefore, becomes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
decisive on the facts of the present case that the
accident was the result of rash and negligent driving
of the car in question by its driver. That is the
conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal and we affirm
it.
12.In this case, even though R.W1 was examined, no explanation
was given against the admission by him. In view of the above, this Court
perused the evidence of P.W.2. P.W.2 clearly deposed that due to the
negligence of the driver of the mini-lorry, the accident happened Apart
from that, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.2 and also
no contra-evidence was adduced by R.W.1 for his admission in the
criminal case. This Court is unable to differ with the finding of the
learned trial Judge relating to fixing the negligence upon the driver of the
mini-lorry.
13.As far as the quantum is concerned, P.W.3 was examined. He is
the President of District Coconut Agricultural association. He produced
Ex.P.16 and no question was raised relating to the reliability of P.W.3's
evidence. P.W.1 also clearly stated that the deceased was doing coconut
business. P.W.3's evidence also is cogent and corroborated with the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
certificate. In the said circumstances, fixing of Rs.20,000/- as a monthly
income by the tribunal is to be confirmed. Further, the learned trial Judge
ordered only Rs.20,000/- without considering the future prospect. If
future prospect is considered, the amount would go around Rs.8,00,000/-.
In the said circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the
quantum granted by the learned trial Judge. In the said circumstances, this
court finds no merit in the appeal. This appeal is dismissed and the
judgment and award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Additional District and Special Court, Pudukkottai in M.C.O.P.No.721 of
2014, dated 29.06.2018 is hereby confirmed. No costs. Consequently,
the connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.
(V.B.S.J.,) (K.K.R.K.J.,)
11.09.2024
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
vsg
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Additional District and Special Judge,
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Pudukkottai.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN.J.,
and
K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN.J.,
vsg
and
11.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
