Madras High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Mr. Ahamed Basha on 30 April, 2025
Author: R.Suresh Kumar
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar
C.M.A.No.1398 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 25.02.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 30.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
and
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE
C.M.A.No.1398 of 2022
The Divisional Manager,
M/s.Cholamandalam MS General Insurance
Company Limited,
No.37, Kadampuliyur Post,
Panruti, Cuddalore,
Tamil Nadu. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Mr. Ahamed Basha
2.Mr. Boopathy
3.Mr. Manjini
4.The Divisional Manager,
M/s.Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
Bharathi Road, Cuddalore,
Tamil Nadu. ... Respondents
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 04:31:55 pm )
C.M.A.No.1398 of 2022
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and decree dated 23.09.2021 made in
M.C.O.P.No.1183 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
District Court, Puducherry.
For Appellant : Mr. M.B. Raghavan for
M/s. M.B. Gopalan Associates.
For Respondents : Mr. V.S. Senthil Kumar for R1.
Mr. V. Regunathan for R2.
Mr. S. Senthil kumar for R4.
R3 – sd – No appearance.
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by Dr. A.D. Maria clete, J)
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the judgment and decree dated 23.09.2021,
passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, District Court, Puducherry, in
MCOP No. 1183 of 2017.
2. The appellant, Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd.,
contends that the Tribunal erred in attributing sole responsibility to the TATA Ace
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 04:31:55 pm )
driver while disregarding the contributory negligence of the tractor driver. It failed
to consider the sequence of events leading to the accident, particularly how the
motorcycle was pushed forward under the tractor. The appellant contends that the
tractor driver could have avoided running over the motorcyclist if he had taken
evasive action. Furthermore, the Tribunal overlooked the fact that both drivers had
pleaded guilty in the criminal case, which, according to the appellant, indicates
shared liability.
3. The accident occurred on 30.01.2016 at about 14:20 hours on Pondy-
Villupuram Main Road. The vehicles involved were:
•TATA Ace (TN-31-AK-7699) driven by Vetrimani (R.W.2),
•Tractor with two trailers (TN-04-F-0286, TN-31-F-8398, TN-E-7962) driven by
Kaliyamurthy,
•Hero Honda Passion motorcycle (TN-05-V-2342) ridden by Ahamed Basha
(Claimant/PW1).
4. According to P.W.1 (the claimant), he was travelling on his motorcycle to
the right of the tractor, which was moving slowly on the left side of the road.
While attempting to overtake the tractor, the TATA Ace came from behind and, in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 04:31:55 pm )
overtaking both the motorcycle and the tractor, collided with his motorcycle. The
impact caused P.W.1 to fall under the tractor’s trailer, leading to grievous injuries.
5. The claimant (P.W.1) deposed that the tractor was moving slowly on the left
side of the road when he attempted to overtake it. Meanwhile, the TATA Ace,
approaching from behind, also attempted to overtake both the motorcycle and the
tractor simultaneously. In the process, the TATA Ace collided with the motorcycle,
causing P.W.1 to lose control and fall under the tractor's trailer.
6. R.W.2 (TATA Ace driver) in his deposition claimed that the accident
occurred when the motorcyclist attempted to overtake him. He further stated that
the tractor driver suddenly slowed down, causing the collision. However, this
claim was contradicted by road conditions, as the accident occurred at a round
turn, making it unlikely that the tractor was moving fast and suddenly applied the
brakes.
7. The Tribunal carefully examined the demeanour of R.W.2 (TATA Ace driver)
during cross-examination and observed that he failed to provide a clear and
consistent account of the accident. His statements were contradictory and lacked
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 04:31:55 pm )
credibility, making it difficult to establish any fault beyond his own. The trial court
noted these inconsistencies and concluded that the negligent overtaking
manoeuvre by the TATA Ace driver was the proximate cause of the accident.
8. Furthermore, the tractor driver was not examined during the trial
proceedings, and there was no independent evidence directly implicating him. The
claim that he was also negligent remains unsubstantiated, as no witness testimony,
investigation report, or material evidence suggests that he contributed to the
accident. In the absence of such proof, the Tribunal found no basis to attribute
liability to the tractor driver.
9. The Investigating Officer (R.W.3) testified that both the TATA Ace driver
and the tractor driver pleaded guilty in the criminal case and paid fines for their
offences. While a criminal conviction or plea of guilt does not automatically
establish negligence in a civil proceeding, it may serve as corroborative evidence.
The findings in a criminal case do not automatically bind civil courts. Further in re
Janabai WD/O Dinkarrao Ghorpade & Ors versus M/S. I.C.I.C.I Lambord
Insurance Company Ltd 2022 LiveLaw [SC 666] the Supreme Court held that
proceedings for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act are summary in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 04:31:55 pm )
nature and must be decided based on the evidence presented in those proceedings,
rather than relying on the evidence from a criminal trial. However, in the absence
of an iota of evidence establishing negligence on the part of the tractor driver, his
admission in the criminal court does not assist the appellant’s case.
10. Upon examining the evidence, it is evident that the Tribunal correctly
fixed liability on the TATA Ace driver for the following reasons: The TATA Ace
driver’s overtaking manoeuvre was the primary cause of the accident. He
attempted to overtake both the motorcycle and the tractor at the same time, leading
to a collision with the motorcycle. The tractor driver was moving slowly and
maintaining his course on the left side of the road. There is no evidence to show
that he made any sudden movement or failed in his duty of care. The plea of guilty
in a criminal case is not conclusive proof of negligence in civil cases. The absence
of direct evidence implicating the tractor driver supports the Tribunal’s conclusion
that he was not at fault. The appellant failed to provide substantial evidence to
prove contributory negligence on the part of the tractor driver. Mere involvement
of a vehicle in an accident does not establish negligence unless proven by clear
evidence. Since the Tribunal's findings are based on sound reasoning and
appreciation of evidence, there is no reason for this Court to interfere.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 04:31:55 pm )
11. In light of the above discussion, this Court finds that the Tribunal rightly
held the TATA Ace driver liable and correctly dismissed the argument of
contributory negligence of the tractor driver. The findings are supported by
evidence, and no legal or factual error warrants interference.
12. Accordingly, the civil miscellaenous appeal is dismissed, and the Tribunal’s
order fixing sole liability on the TATA Ace driver is upheld. However, the tribunal
erred in awarding 5.5% interest per annum and hence, the interest is fixed at 7.5%
per annum. The appellant/insurance company is directed to deposit the award
amount now determined by this Court, together with interest at the rate of 7.5%
per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit along with interest and
costs (less the default period, if any), less the amount already deposited if any
within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.
On such deposit, the first respondent is permitted to withdraw the award amount
along with proportionate interest and costs, less the amount if any, already
withdrawn. No costs.
(R.S.K., J) (A.D.M.C., J)
30.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 04:31:55 pm )
ay
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Puducherry.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai.
R.SURESH KUMAR, J
and
DR. A.D. MARIA CLETE, J
ay
Pre-Delivery Judgment made in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 04:31:55 pm )
30.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 04:31:55 pm )
