Madras High Court
The Branch Manager vs Shanthakumari on 12 September, 2024
C.M.A.(MD)No.1131 of 2015
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 12.09.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
C.M.A(MD)No.1131 of 2015
and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2015
The Branch Manager,
National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
D.No.1631-17-B First Floor,
Salem Bhavani Main Raod,
Sangakiri,
Salem 637 301 ... Appellant/2nd Respondent
Vs.
1.Shanthakumari
2.Devadass ...Respondents 1 and 2/Petitioners
3.K.S.Lenin ...3rd Respondent/1st Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated
12.01.2015 passed in M.C.O.P.No.12 of 2013 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, II Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan
For R1 & R2 : No appearance
R3 : Given up
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.1 of 6
C.M.A.(MD)No.1131 of 2015
JUDGMENT
The instant appeal has been filed challenging the finding on
negligence.
2.The respondents 1 and 2/claimants filed a claim petition stating
that while the deceased was riding his motorcycle, a vehicle insured with
the appellant came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the
motorcycle as a result of which the deceased sustained fatal injuries.
3. The 3rd respondent herein, who is the owner of the offending
vehicle, remained exparte before the Tribunal.
4. The appellant filed a counter stating that the accident took place
due to the negligence of the deceased; that the first information report
registered by the police against the driver of the offending vehicle was
closed as ''action dropped''; that hence, the appellant is not liable to pay
compensation; and that in any case, the compensation claimed was
excessive.
5. The claimants examined P.W.1 and P.W.2 and marked Ex.P.1 to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Ex.P.7. The appellant examined R.W.1 and marked Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.2.
6. The Tribunal, after taking into consideration the oral and
documentary evidence, held that the accident took place only due to the
rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and
directed the appellant to pay the compensation of Rs.6,93,000/-.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the finding
on negligence is erroneous since the first information report lodged
against the driver of the offending vehicle was ultimately closed as
''action dropped''.
8. Though a learned counsel has filed vakalat for the claimants,
there is no representation for the claimants today. The learned counsel for
the appellant has given up the 3rd respondent, who is the owner of the
offending vehicle as he remained ex parte before the Tribunal as he may
not be necessary.
9. This Court gave its anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the appellant and carefully perused the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
materials available on record.
10. The point for consideration in the instant appeal is as follows:
Whether the finding on negligence by the Tribunal is
justified.
11. The claimant had examined P.W.2 to prove the manner of
accident. The appellant had not examined any eyewitness to the
occurrence. It is a case of the claimants that the insured vehicle was
driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two-
wheeler ridden by the deceased. The appellant has not produced any
contra evidence to disprove the evidence of the claimants. However, the
only ground raised by the appellant is that the first information report
lodged against the driver has been closed as ''action dropped'. It is well
settled that the nature of inquiry in a criminal investigation is different
from the nature of enquiry before the Tribunal. Merely because, the first
information report against the driver of the offending vehicle was closed
as ''action dropped'', it cannot be said that tort of negligence was not
established before the Tribunal. Therefore, the point for consideration is
answered accordingly.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
12. There is no challenge to the quantum of compensation. Hence,
the learned counsel for the appellant shall deposit the entire
compensation amount of Rs.6,93,000/- with accrued interest at the rate of
7.5% from the date of petition till the date of deposit, less the amount
already deposited, if any, within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment. The respondents 1 and 2/ claimants
are permitted to withdraw the same by filing a suitable application before
the Tribunal.
13. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
12.09.2024
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
CM
To
1.Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Additional District Judge,
Tirunelveli.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
CM
Judgment made in
12.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
