Madras High Court
The General Manager vs Durairaj on 12 September, 2024
C.M.A.(MD)No.1087 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.1087 of 2015
and M.P(MD)No.3 of 2015
The General Manager,
National Insurance Company Limited,
Branch Office – 3,
2/7, Pudukkottai Road,
Tiruchirappalli - 20 ... Appellant/2nd Respondent
Vs.
1.Durairaj
2.Meenambal ...Respondents 1 & 2/Petitioners
3.Saravanakumar ...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
25.10.2013 passed in M.C.O.P.No.283 of 2013 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal Judge, Special District Court, Tiruchirappalli.
For Appellant : Mr.J.S.Murali
For R1 & R2 : Mr.N.Sudhagar Nagaraj
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.1 of 7
C.M.A.(MD)No.1087 of 2015
JUDGMENT
The instant appeal has been filed challenging the finding on
negligence and liability.
2.The respondents 1 and 2 herein/claimants filed a claim petition
stating that while the deceased was walking on the Trichy-Karur main
road, the car bearing Reg. No. TN-45-P-1999 and insured with the
appellant came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the
deceased, 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 averments in the
claim petition are false; that the insured vehicle was not involved in the
occurrence; and that in any case, the compensation claimed was
excessive.
5. The claimants examined P.W.1 to P.W.3 and marked Ex.P.1 to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Ex.P.5 besides Ex.X.1 to Ex.X.3. The appellant examined R.W.1 and
marked Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.5.
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 insured vehicle and
directed the appellant to pay the compensation of Rs.2,74,000/-.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
appellant had disputed the accident itself; that it is a case of bogus claim,
as could be seen from the evidence of R.W.1 and the inspection report
submitted by R.W.1; that the driver of the insured vehicle had falsely
pleaded guilty before the learned Magistrate; that the Tribunal erred in
holding the driver of the insured vehicle liable for rash and negligent
driving; and that in any case, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal
is excessive.
8. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 2/claimants and per
contra submitted that the award of the Tribunal is justified and there is no
reason to interfere with the award.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9. This Court gave its anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for
the respondents 1 and 2 and carefully perused the materials available on
record.
10. The points for consideration in the instant appeal are as
follows:
a) Whether the finding on negligence by the Tribunal
is justified; and
b) Whether the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is just and reasonable.
11. As regards the first point, the appellant had taken a stand that
the insured vehicle was not at all involved in the accident. R.W.1, who
was examined on the side of the appellant, stated that he had conducted
an inspection and found that the claim was bogus. The appellant in fact
had lodged the complaint to the CBCID police and after investigation,
the said complaint was closed. The Officer, who conducted the
investigation, was examined as P.W.3 by the claimants, who had deposed
that the averments in the claim petition were true and the accident took
place in the manner alleged by the claimants and therefore, they had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
closed the complaint. That apart, it is seen that the driver of the offending
vehicle had pleaded guilty to the charge under Section 304(A) IPC before
the learned Judicial Magistrate No.3, Trichy and he was convicted by
judgment dated 19.03.2002 and was directed to pay fine. There was no
challenge to that judgment.
12. The claimant had also examined the eyewitness P.W.2 whose
evidence is corroborated by the evidence referred to above. In the light of
the foregoing evidence produced on the side of the claimants, this Court
is of the view that the finding on negligence holding the driver of the
insured vehicle liable for rash and negligent driving and directing the
appellant to pay compensation cannot be faulted. The point No.1 is
answered accordingly.
13. As regards the quantum of compensation, it is seen that the
deceased was aged 17 years and considering his age and the educational
qualification, the Tribunal had awarded a total compensation under
various heads and no infirmity has been pointed out by the learned
counsel for the appellant as regard the quantum and hence, the award of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
compensation is just and reasonable. The point No.2 is answered
accordingly.
14. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the entire
compensation amount of Rs.2,74,000/- has been deposited. The
respondents 1 and 2/ claimants are permitted to withdraw the same as per
the apportionment fixed by the Tribunal.
15. 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 Judge,
Special District Court, Tiruchirappalli.
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
