The National Insurance Vs Minor Hariprakash

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 24.02.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICED.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶5

C.M.A.NOS.2023, 2024 & 2025 OF 2009
AND
M.P.NOS.1,1 AND 1 OF 2009

¶6

The National Insurance Company Limited,
Divisional Office at
No.11, Sakthi Road,
Lalbagh Mission Road,
Bangalore – 560 027.

¶7

... Appellant in all appeals

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.Minor. Hariprakash
[Minor represented by the natural
guardian father Chandrasekaran]

¶10

2.Kantharaj

¶11

3.Meera Suresh

¶12

4.The Managing Director,
 Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,
 No.12, Ramakrishna Road,
 Salem.

¶13

5.P.Easwaran

¶14

6.P.Rajagopalan

¶15

... Respondents in
C.M.A.No.2023 of 2009

¶16

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

`1.Chandrasekaran`
`2.Minor Jothi prakash`
`3.Minor Hariprakash`
`[2`^nd`and 3`^rd`minor petitioners represented`
`by their guardian father Chandrasekaran]`
`4.Kantharaj`
`5.Meera Suresh`
`6.The Managing Director,`
`Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,`
`No.12, Ramakrishna Road,` `Salem.`
`7.P.Easwaran`
`8.P.Rajagopalan` `...Respondents in` `C.M.A.No.2024 of 2009`
`1.Minor. Jothiprakash`
`[Minor represented by his natural` `guardian father Chandrasekaran]`
`2.Kantharaj`
`3.Meera Suresh`
`4.The Managing Director,` `Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,`
`No.12, Ramakrishna Road,` `Salem.`
`5.P.Easwraran`
`6.P.Rajagopalan`
`...Respondents in`
`C.M.A.No.2025 of 2009`

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

COMMON PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section
173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the judgment
and decree dated 24.10.2008 and made in M.A.C.T.O.P.Nos.113, 114
& 115 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Pollachi (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Subordinate Judge
of Pollachi).

¶20

For Respondents
In CMA.Nos.2023
& 2025/2009 : Mr.D.Raghu [for R4]
 R1 - No Appearance
 R2 – Notice unserved
 RR3, 5 & 6 – Notice served

¶21

In CMA.No.2024/2009 : Mr.D.Raghu [for R6]
 RR1 to 3 – No Appearance
 R4 - Notice unserved
 RR5, 7 & 8 - Notice served

¶22

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶23

The Appellant/Insurance Company has filed these appeals
against the judgment and decree dated 24.10.2008 made in
M.A.C.T.O.P.Nos.113, 114, & 115 of 2005 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal cum Subordinate Judge, Pollachi.

¶24

2. The respondents/claimants have filed a claim petition
before the Tribunal, for claiming compensation amount for the
accident happened on 07.05.2005, involving the bus bearing
Registration No.TN-27-N-1166. According to the claimants, the
deceased Vijayarani and minor sons were returning back from
Salem in bus bearing Registration No.TN-27-N-1166. While the bus
was proceeding towards Sangakiri to Salem road, another bus
bearing Registration No.TN-27-N-0870 came from opposite
direction, at that time the driver of the motor car bearing
registration No.KA-03-B-6773 suddenly overtook the town bus
bearing Registration No.TN-27-N-0870 coming in the opposite
direction and came extreme right side of the road. The driver of

¶25

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶26

the bus TN-27-N-1166, in which the petitioners were travelling,
on seeing the car coming at a great speed on the extreme right
side, turned the bus in order to avoid hitting the car. But the
car driven in a rash and negligent manner and the accident had
happened.

¶27

3. Based on the aforesaid said statement of the
claimants, the Tribunal awarded compensation amount of
Rs.1,60,000/- and fixed the liability as against the
appellant/Insurance Company and the respondent/Transport
Corporation. Challenging the said award of the Tribunal, the
appellant/Insurance Company has preferred the appeals before
this Court.

¶28

4. According to the learned counsel for the
appellant/Insurance Company, the Tribunal after considering the
oral and documentary evidence and based on the report of the
police however gave its finding that there is contributory
negligence on the part of the appellant/Insurance Company and
the respondent/Transport Corporation, but the grievance of the
appellant/Insurance Company is that the Tribunal has fixed 75%
liability towards the compensation to the claimants payable by
the appellant/Insurance company and 25% liability to the
respondent/Transport Corporation. The evidence marked before the
Tribunal clearly prove that it is contributory negligence on
both sides and the Tribunal ought to have fixed 50% liability on
theappellant/InsuranceCompanyaswellasthe
respondent/Transport Corporation.

¶29

5. Learned counsel for the respondent/Transport
Corporation strongly objected the contention of the appellant
Insurance company and submitted that the motor car was
mechanically overtaking the bus bearing Registration No.TN-27-N-
0870 without noticing the respondent/Transport Corporation
vehicle and thereby caused the accident and the passengers in
the respondent/Transport Corporation also have sustained injury.
Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly fixed the liability.

¶30

6. On analyzing the aforesaid submission of the rival
parties and also perusing the materials on record, this Court
finds that P.W.2, eye-witness to the accident stated that on
07.05.2005 at about 3.30 p.m. he was talking with his sister in
her house which is situated near Akkammapettai slope; that the

¶31

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶32

TNPSC Bus bearing Registration No.TN-27-N-1166 came from left
side of the road, another bus bearing Registration No.TN-27-N-
0870 came from opposite direction, the driver of the car bearing
Registration No.KA-03-B-6773 over took the bus bearing
Registration No.TN-27-N-0870, resulting in both the drivers of
the buses losing their control and dashed against each other.
Therefore, from the evidence of P.W.2 it is clear that the said
accident occurred due to overtaking of the car driver. Based on
the evidence, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion
that there was contributory negligence on both the vehicle and
accordingly,fixedtheliabilityas75%onthe
appellant/Insurance Company and 25% on the respondent /Transport
Corporation. The appeals preferred by the Transport Corporation
in CMA.No.927 to 929 of 2010 in respect of quantum have been
settled in a Mega Lok Adalat. Now the present dispute among the
appellant / Insurance Company and the respondent / Transport
Corporation is with regard to the percentage of liability to pay
the compensation amount.

¶33

7. In my view, P.W.2 has clearly stated that insured
vehicle of the appellant/Insurance Company has attempted to
overtake the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-27-N-0870.
Therefore, the Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion by fixing
as against the appellant / Insurance Company and no other
materials are placed before this Court to absolve the
appellant/Insurance Company from being liable for 75%.
Therefore, in such circumstances, this Court rejects the
contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance
Company.

¶34

8. Accordingly, these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are
liable to be dismissed. No order as to costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

Assistant Registrar(CS-III)

¶37

// True Copy //

¶38

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶39

bri

¶40

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶41

To

¶42

`1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal` `cum Subordinate Judge,` `Pollachi.`
`2. The Managing Director,`
`Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,` `No.12, Ramakrishna Road,` `Salem.`
`3. The Section Officer,`
`V.R.Section, High Court,` `Madras.`
`+3ccs to Mr.S.Vadivel, Advocate, S.R.No.11294, 11293, 11292`
`+3ccs to Mr.D.Raghu, Advocate, S.R.No.11365, 11364, 11363`

¶43

C.M.A.Nos.2023, 2024 & 2025 of 2009
and M.P.Nos.1,1 and 1 of 2009

¶44

SSN(CO)
RLP(13/09/2021)

¶45

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

The National Insurance v. Minor Hariprakash

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The National Insurance v. Minor Hariprakash

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Managing Director Vs Tmt. Kalpana

Chinnappa Chetty Vs Raghupathy Gowda

T.S.Pradeep Vs the Managing Director

M.Prema Vs K.Balasundaram

The Branch Manager Vs Shanthi

Manini Vs M/S Paramount Heavy Carriers