Madras High Court
Manikandaraj vs Edward Devanathan on 27 March, 2025
CMA.No.2715 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 05.03.2025
PRONOUNCED ON :27.03.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
CMA.No.2715 of 2023
Manikandaraj
... Appellant
Vs.
1.Edward Devanathan
2.National Insurance Company Limited,
751, Anna Salai, Third Party Cell,
Chennai – 2. ... Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988, praying to allow the claim in MCOP.No.6407 of 2013, dated
19.02.2021, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Small
Causes Court, Special Subordinate Court No.I) Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Varadhakamaraj
for M/s.P.Selvaraj
For Respondents : Mrs.R.Sree Vidhya
for Mr. R.Ravichandran
1/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 07:04:52 pm )
CMA.No.2715 of 2023
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed challenging
the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, dismissing the
claim petition.
2. According to the appellant/claimant on 11.09.2012, when he
was waiting for unloading the scrap materials at Sivan Street, Ganapathy
Nagar, Maduravoil, a crane belongs to the first respondent insured with the
second respondent was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner
and as a result of the same, the Iron bars unloaded by the crane had fallen
down on the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner suffered grievous injuries and
therefore the claim petition was filed seeking compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-
.
3. The first respondent owner of the crane remained ex-parte.
The second respondent insurer of the vehicle filed counter and denied the
manner of accident as averred in the claim petition. It was the case of the
second respondent that the crane belonged to the first respondent was not at
all involved in the accident. It was also claimed that the said crane was sold
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 07:04:52 pm )
to one Karthikeyan and the claim petition filed without impleading said
Karthikeyan, who was also driver of the vehicle at the relevant point of
time was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
4. Before the claims Tribunal, the appellant/injured claimant
was examined as PW.1 and seven documents were marked on the side of the
claimant as Exs.P1 to P7. On behalf of the second respondent, its
investigator was examined as RW.1 and Assistant Manager was examined
as RW.2. Four documents were marked on the side of the second
respondent as Exs.R1 to R4. The disability certificate issued by the Medical
Board was marked as Ex.C1.
5. The Tribunal based on the evidence available on record
came to the conclusion that the claimant did not sustain any injury in an
accident occurred on road and hence claim petition before the claims
Tribunal was not maintainable. The Tribunal also found that at the time of
accident, the crane belonged to one Karthikeyan, who was also driver of the
vehicle on the date of occurrence and hence it was for the claimant to
initiate appropriate proceedings against him for recovery of damages. With
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 07:04:52 pm )
these findings, the claim petition was dismissed by the Tribunal. Aggrieved
by the same, the claimant has come before this Court.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant by taking
this Court to the evidence available on record submitted that the accident
had occurred at Sivan Street, Ganapathy Nagar, Maduravoil and therefore,
the Tribunal committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the
accident did not occur on road. The learned counsel further submitted that
even assuming the accident did not occur in a public road and it occurred in
a godown as contended by the respondents, still it can be treated as a public
place for the purpose of the Motor Vehicles Act and hence the claim
petition was maintainable before the Tribunal.
7. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel relied
on the judgment passed by the Full Bench of this Court in United India
Insurance Company Limited, Vs. Parvathi Devi and Others reported in
1999 ACJ 1520 and New India Assurance Company Limited Vs.
Srinivasan and others reported in 2021 (1) TNMAC 73.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 07:04:52 pm )
8. The learned counsel appearing for the second
respondent/Insurance Company would submit that in Ex.P2-Discharge
summary, it was clearly mentioned that the accident was caused by an
unknown lorry and the FIR was filed nearly after nine months from the date
of occurrence and therefore, the Tribunal was justified in coming to the
conclusion that the claim petition was liable to be dismissed.
9. The learned counsel further submitted that as per
investigation report filed by the second respondent marked as EX.R2, the
accident had occurred in a godown which cannot be treated as a public place
and hence the claim petition was not maintainable before the claims
Tribunal.
10. The learned counsel further submitted that the first
respondent sold the vehicle to one Karthikeyan who also acted as a driver
on the date of occurrence and hence without impleading the present owner
of the vehicle, the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 07:04:52 pm )
11. In order to prove the accident, the claimant deposed as
PW.1 and his evidence is in accordance with the averments contained in the
claim petition. He clearly asserted in his evidence that the accident had
occurred in Sivan Street, Ganapathy Nagar, Maduravoil. The evidence of
PW.1 also very well corroborated by the findings of the Investigation
Officer of the second respondent Insurance Company, which was marked as
Ex.R2. In Ex.R2, he recorded his findings and opinions which read as
follows:
“On 11th September 2012 at about 11.30
A.M., the TN-20 L-7958 Escort Crane hit a Man and
thereafter the iron Axel fell down on the man at Near
Number 70/1, Sivan Koil Street, Gannapathy Nagar,
Chennai.
Due to this accident the man P.Manikandaraja
S/o.Pasumponpandian sustained grievous injuries.
The accident was reported to Poonamallee
Traffic Investigation Police Station on 11.06.2013 at
11.30 A.M and was registered vide FIR 815/PH3/2013
under Section 279 and 337 of IPC.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 07:04:52 pm )
The TN-20 L-7958 Escort Crane had insurance
cover under the National Insurance Company Limited,
Poonamallee Office on the date of accident.
The TN-20 L-7958 Escort Crane driver at the
time of accident named K.Karthikeyan,
S/o.Krishnamurthy as verified police records and he
had valid and current driving license at the time of
accident.
The Poonamallee Traffic Investigation
Police filed Charge Sheet. The Court fined the accused
he was remitted the fine amount hence the Poonamallee
Traffic Investigation Police closed the above said
Criminal Case.”
12. A perusal of the findings of the investigator would reveal
that the accident had occurred near Door No.70/1, Sivan Koil Street,
Ganapathy Nagar, Chennai and crane belonged to the first respondent with
Registration No.TN-20L-7958 was involved in the accident. Though in the
bottom of the very same page, he had written by his hand to the effect that
the accident had occurred in private godown, the investigation officer in his
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 07:04:52 pm )
report also enclosed the affidavit filed by one Karthikeyan, who is said to
have acted as driver. The notarized affidavit of said Karthikeyan clearly
proves that the crane in question had involved in the accident. However, he
claims that the injured claimant was at fault and he suddenly came near the
vehicle and hence Iron rods fell down on him. In his affidavit, he also
mentioned that the accident occurred in a godown situated in Door No.70/1,
Sivan Street, Ganapathy Nagar, Chennai. However, there is no clarity in his
affidavit, whether accident occurred inside the godown or in Sivan Street in
front of godown. The possibility of crane entering godown is also remote.
Though the affidavit of driver of crane was enclosed along with
investigation report, he did not enter the witness box before the Tribunal for
giving evidence inspite of service of summons on him. However, the
claimant entered box and deposed that the accident had occurred at Sivan
Street and his evidence is corroborated by findings of Investigation Officer
also. In these circumstances, this Court comes to the conclusion that the
accident had occurred at Sivan Street, which is a public place.
13. In United India Insurance Company Limited, Vs.
Parvathi Devi and Others, a Full Bench of this Court, while explaining
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 07:04:52 pm )
expression public purpose, for the purpose of Motor Vehicles Act observed
as follows:
“16. The definition of 'public place' is very wide. A
perusal of the same reveals that the public at large has a
right to access though that right is regulated or restricted. It
is also seen that this Act is beneficial legislation, so also the
law of interpretation has to be construed in the benefit of
public. In the overall legal position and the fact that if the
language is simple and unambiguous, it has to be construed
in the benefit of the public, we are of the view that the word
'public place', wherever used as a right or controlled in any
manner whatsoever, would attract Section 2(24) of the Act.
In view of this, as stated, the private place used with
permission or without permission would amount to be a
'public place'.”
14. A perusal of the above judgment would make it clear, for
the purpose of Motor Vehicles Act, even a private place used with
permission or restriction can also be treated as public place .
15. In the New India Assurance Company Limited Vs.
Srinivasan and others reported in 2021 (1) TNMAC 73, this Court held that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 07:04:52 pm )
a private agriculture field which can be accessed without restriction can be
treated as a public place for the purpose of Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore,
it is clear private places where public are allowed with permission or with
some kind of restriction can also be treated as a public place for the purpose
of Motor Vehicles Act. The main object of the Motor Vehicles Act is to
provide compensation to the unfortunate Motor Vehicle Accident victims.
Therefore, the word 'public place' as defined under Section 2(34) of Motor
Vehicles Act shall be interpreted widely so as to achieve the object of the
enactment. The definition in the Section 2(34) reads as follows:
“2(34) “public place” means a road, street,
way or other place, whether a thoroughfare or not, to
which the public have a right of access, and includes any
place or stand at which passengers are picked up or set
down by a stage carriage.”
16. Therefore, it is clear, even if a place is not a thoroughfare,
if public have access to that place, it can be treated as a public place. In the
Full Bench judgment cited supra, it was held that even if public is allowed
to visit the private place with restriction or with permission it can be treated
as a public place. Even assuming that the accident occurred in front of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 07:04:52 pm )
godown where vehicles are allowed to load and unload the goods, we can
safely presume that any private place in front of the godown where vehicles
are allowed to load or unload the goods can be treated as a place to which
public will have restricted or permitted access. Therefore, we can safely
come to a conclusion that the accident in this case had occurred in a public
place, even assuming it occurred in a private place i.e., in front of the
godown. However, factually this Court already came to the conclusion that
the accident had occurred in Sivan Street, which is a public place.
Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal with regard to this aspect is set aside.
17. It is not in dispute that the first respondent herein is the
registered owner of the Motor Vehicle. The said fact is admitted by the
second respondent in investigation report marked as Ex.R2, wherein the
owner of the vehicle was mentioned as Edward Devananthan, the first
respondent herein. It was also admitted that a valid policy was issued in
favour of first respondent's vehicle involved in the accident. Though it was
claimed that the vehicle was sold to one Karthikeyan who also acted as a
driver at the time of occurrence, in the absence of any concrete evidence to
show that vehicle was legally transferred in the name of Karthikeyan, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 07:04:52 pm )
liability of the registered owner continues. Therefore, I hold the first
respondent is liable to meet the claim in his capacity as the registered owner
of the vehicle and the second respondent being the insurer is also jointly
and severally liable to meet the claim.
18. It was averred in the claim petition that the deceased was a
load man cum cleaner and was earning a sum of Rs.7,000/- per month. A
perusal of discharge summary marked as Ex.P2 would indicate the claimant
suffered fracture of bilateral body of mandible, fracture of superior and
inferior public rami bilateral, fracture of L3 spine/fracture of 1,2,3,4,5 right
ribs. The disability certificate issued to the claimant marked as Ex.C1
would establish that the claimant suffered a disability at 20%. However,
there is no positive evidence available on record to show that the injury
suffered by the claimant interfered with his avocation.
19. A perusal of discharge summary issued to the claimant would
indicate that at the time of discharge, the claimant was conscious and
oriented. The surgical wound was also noted as healed. In the absence of
any positive evidence to suggest that by virtue of injury suffered
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 07:04:52 pm )
by him, the claimant is disabled from continuing his avocation, this Court is
inclined to award compensation on percentage basis, under the head
disability. The accident had occurred in the year 2012 and therefore
Rs.3,000/- is fixed as compensation per percentage of disability.
Therefore, the claimant is entitled to Rs.60,000/- under the head disability.
Ex.P4 is the medical bills produced by the claimant. A perusal of the same
would indicate that the claimant incurred an expenditure of Rs.1,94,766.50/-
towards medical expenses, the same is rounded off to Rs.1,94,800/-.
20. In addition to the above said sum, the claimant is entitled
to Rs.10,000/- (each) towards pain and suffering and loss of amenities. The
discharge summary would indicate the claimant was in hospital for nearly
18 days (i.e, 12.09.2012 to 29.09.2012 ). Therefore, the claimant is entitled
to Rs.5,000/- (each)towards extra nourishment and attender charges. In all
claimant is entitled to Rs.2,84,800/-. The award passed by the Tribunal is
set aside and the following amount is awarded by this Court towards
compensation:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 07:04:52 pm )
S.No Description Amount awarded by this Court
(Rs)
1. Medical expenses 1,94,800/-
2. Loss of amenities 10,000-
3. Pain and suffering 10,000/-
4. Attender charges 5,000/-
5. Extra Nourishment 5,000/-
6. Disability 60,000/-
Total Rs.2,84,800/-
21. In view of the discussions made earlier, the claimant is
entitled to a sum of Rs.2,84,800/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% on the
enhanced award. The respondents 1 and 2 are liable to pay the amount of
Rs.2,84,800/- to the appellant as compensation to the injury suffered by
him. The second respondent is directed to deposit the above mentioned
amount to the credit of MCOP.No.6407 of 2013, on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, (Small Causes Court, Special Subordinate Court
No.I) Chennai, within six weeks from the date of receipt of judgment. On
such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the award amount now
determined by this Court, along with interest and costs, by making formal
application before the Tribunal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 07:04:52 pm )
22. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed.
27.03.2025
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order:Yes/No
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
ub
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Small Causes Court, Special Subordinate Court No.1, Chennai.
2.The Section Officer
VR Section,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 07:04:52 pm )
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
ub
27.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 07:04:52 pm )
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 07:04:52 pm )
