Madras High Court
Y.Thomas vs St on 15 April, 2025
CMA.No.1068 and 1070 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated :15.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
CMA No.1068 and 1070 of 2025 and
C.M.P.Nos.8861 and 8869 of 2025
1.Y.Thomas
2.R.Amala ... Appellants in both the CMA's.
Vs.
st
1.J.S.Murali Babu ......1 respondent in C.M.A.No.1068 of 2025
1. K.Venkatesh ....1st respondent in C.M.A.No.1070 of 2025
2.N.A.Suguna
3. Branch Manager
United India Insurance Co. Ltd,
1st Floor, RV reddy Complex,
Bangarpet-563 114,
Karnataka State. ...... 2nd and 3rd Respondents in both the CMA.'s
Prayer in C.M.A.No.1068 of 2025:Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed
under 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the Judgment and
decree passed in MCOP No.30 of 2019 dated 28.04.2023 by the Hon'ble
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Subordinate Court at
Krishnagiri and allow this CMA.
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/05/2025 07:47:59 pm )
CMA.No.1068 and 1070 of 2025
Prayer in C.M.A.No.1070 of 2025:Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed
under 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the Judgment and
decree passed in MCOP No.32 of 2019 dated 28.04.2023 by the Hon'ble
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Subordinate Court at
Krishnagiri and allow this CMA.
In both CMA's.
For Appellants : Mr. R.Dinesh Kumar
for Dineshkumar Associates
For respondents : M/s.P.Sankaranarayanan for R3
R1 and R2-Notice dispensed with
COMMON JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the common award passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal in MCOP No.30 of 2019 and MCOP No. 32 of 2019, the
appellants have come before this Court by way of these appeals.
2. It is the case that 1st respondent in MCOP No. 32 of 2019
(CMA.No.1070 of 2025) and 1st respondent in MCOP.No.30 of 2019
(CMA.No.1068 of 2025) were travelling in a car bearing Registration
No.KA 51 MB 2502 as driver and passenger on 05.09.2017. According to
them, the 1st respondent/claimant in MCOP No.32 of 2019 was driving
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/05/2025 07:47:59 pm )
CMA.No.1068 and 1070 of 2025
the car in a moderate speed cautiously in the middle of the road by
following the traffic rules. At that point of time, the Mahindra pickup van
bearing Registration No.TN 31 AA 9139 belonged to the 2nd appellant
was driven by the 1st appellant in a rash and negligent manner and dashed
against the car. As a result of the accident, both the claimants suffered
grievous injuries and hence, the claim petitions were filed seeking
compensation.
3. The claim petitions were resisted by the appellants herein by
filing counter denying the manner of accident as described in the claim
petitions. It was the specific case of the appellants that the accident had
taken place only due to the negligence on the part of the claimant in
MCOP.No.32 of 2019, who had driven the car at that point of time.
4. The Tribunal, based on the evidence available on record, came
to the conclusion that the accident had occurred only due to the
negligence on the part of the driver of the Mahindra pickup van and
hence, held that appellants herein were jointly and severally liable to pay
the compensation as driver and owner of the offending vehicle. The
compensation payable to the claimant in MCOP.No.30 of 2019 was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/05/2025 07:47:59 pm )
CMA.No.1068 and 1070 of 2025
quantified at Rs.4,45,000/-. The compensation payable to the claimant in
MCOP.No.32 of 2019 was quantified at Rs 2,90,000/- Aggrieved by the
award, the driver and owner of the Mahindra pickup van have filed these
appeals.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended
that 1st appellant, driver of the Mahindra pickup van is a professional
driver having knowledge and experience in driving the vehicle on road.
However, the 1st respondent in MCOP.No.32 of 2019, who had driven the
car, failed to produce any driving license to establish that he was holding
a proper driving license to drive light motor vehicle. Therefore, according
to them, the Tribunal committed an error in fixing negligence on the part
of the driver of the Mahindra pickup van.
6. In order to prove the negligence aspect, both the claimants
examined themselves as PW-1 and PW-2. The FIR filed against the driver
of the Mahindra pickup van/1st appellant herein was marked as Exhibit
P1. The PW-1 and PW-2, in their evidence, clearly deposed that the
accident had occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the driver
of the Mahindra pickup van. Their evidence is very well corroborated by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/05/2025 07:47:59 pm )
CMA.No.1068 and 1070 of 2025
the contents of FIR, Ex.P1. The copy of the same was also produced
before this court.
7. Based on the oral evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 and also the
contents of Exhibit P1, FIR, the Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion
that the accident had occurred only due to the negligent driving of the
Mahindra pickup van by the 1st appellant.
8. The appellants herein, who filed a counter denying the
negligence on their part, failed to participate in the inquiry and cross
examine PW-1 and PW-2. They also failed to examine any witness on
their side. In these circumstances, the Tribunal was justified in fixing
negligence on the part of the 1st appellant and the said finding is in
accordance with the evidence available on record. Therefore, the
contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants with regard to
the negligence aspect is repelled.
9. Both the victims were subjected to medical examination by the
competent medical board. The disability certificates issued by the medical
board were marked as Exhibit C1 and Exhibit C2. The medical board
assessed the disability suffered by the claimant in MCOP.No. 30 of 2019
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/05/2025 07:47:59 pm )
CMA.No.1068 and 1070 of 2025
at 45%. He suffered following injuries as per discharge summary, Exhibit
P6.
“1.Laceration left forehead 5x2x1cm
2.Abrasion left cheek
3.Pain right hip dislocation with pipkin type IV fracture
of femoral head”
10. Taking into consideration the nature of injury and the disability
assessed by the competent medical board, the Tribunal granted Rs.5,000/-
per percentage of the disability and quantified the compensation payable
under the head disability at Rs.2,25,000/- and the same appears to be
reasonable. The Tribunal also awarded Rs.1,14,000/- under the head
medical expenses and the same is based on the medical bills produced
before the Tribunal. The amount awarded by the Tribunal under various
other heads are reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Therefore, the appellants have not made out any case to interfere with the
quantum of compensation arrived at Rs.4,45,000/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/05/2025 07:47:59 pm )
CMA.No.1068 and 1070 of 2025
11. The claimant in MCOP.No.32 of 2019 suffered a disability at
40% as per the disability certificate issued by the competent medical
board. As per Exhibit P7, accident register, the claimant in MCOP.No. 32
of 2019 suffered following injuries:-
“1.Centre chest pain.
2.Pain left knee.
4.Fracture of 4th and 5th rib”
12. Taking into consideration the nature of injury and the disability
assessed by the competent medical board, the Tribunal granted Rs.5000/-
per percentage of the disability and quantified the compensation payable
under the head disability at Rs.2,00,000/-. The amount awarded by the
Tribunal under various other heads like pain and suffering, loss of
income, transportation expenses, extra nourishment, attendant charges,
loss of amenities, damage to clothes, etc., are reasonable in the facts and
circumstances of the case. Therefore, the total compensation fixed by the
Tribunal at Rs.2,90,000/- to the claimant in MCOP.No. 32 of 2019
requires no interference by this court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/05/2025 07:47:59 pm )
CMA.No.1068 and 1070 of 2025
13. In view of the discussions made earlier, both the civil
miscellaneous appeals stand dismissed. Consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.
15.04.2025
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
nr
To
1. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Special Subordinate Court, Krishnagiri
2. The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/05/2025 07:47:59 pm )
CMA.No.1068 and 1070 of 2025
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
nr
CMA No.1068 and 1070 of 2025 and
C.M.P.Nos.8861 and 8869 of 2025
15.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/05/2025 07:47:59 pm )
