Dismissed

The Branch Manager, v. v. Amudha

Madras HC26 Apr 2021CMA(MD)/1363/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging an award by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal regarding compensation for a death in a road accident was dismissed. The court upheld the Tribunal's finding that the lorry driver was solely responsible for the rash and negligent driving causing the accident and deemed the awarded quantum reasonable.

What did the court decide?

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal dismissed; Consequently connected miscellaneous petition closed. No Costs.

The Branch Manager, Vs v. Amudha — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

C.M.A.(MD)No.1363 of 2013

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Reserved On : 19.04.2021

¶4

Delivered On : 26.04.2021

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. THARANI

¶7

C.M.A.(MD)No.1363 of 2013 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2013

¶8

The Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Company Ltd., No.43 A/2, Juman Centre, Promenade Road, Cantonment, Tiruchirappali. ..Appellant/2^nd Respondent Vs.

¶9

1.V.Amudha 2.Muralikrishnan 3.Minor V.Janani (Minor Rep. By R1, the mother and Natural Guardian)

¶10

4.K.Veerabadhran ... 1^st to 4^th Respondents/Petitioners 5.N.Govindaraj ... 5^th Respondent/1^st Respondent 6.M.Padmavathi ... 6^th Respondent/3^rd Respondent 7.The Branch Manager, M/s.National Insurance Company, No.33, Promenade Road, Cantonment, Tiruchirappalli. ..7^th Respondent/4^th Respondent

¶11

Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the award and decree dated 30.11.2012 made in M.C.O.P.No.720 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (I Additional District Court), Tiruchirappalli. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶12

1/4

¶13

C.M.A.(MD)No.1363 of 2013

¶14

For Appellant For Respondents 1 to 4 For 7^th Respondent For 5^th Respondent

¶15

For 6^th Respondent

¶16

: Mr.B.Vijay Karthikeyan : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar : Mr.R.Srinivasan : Given Up Vide order dated 05.12.2017 : No Appearance

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.720 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (I Additional District Court), Trichirappalli.

¶19

2.The appellant is the second respondent, the respondents 1 to 4 are the claimants, the fifth respondent is the first respondent, the sixth respondent is the third respondent and the seventh respondent is the fourth respondent in the claim petition. The respondents 1 to 4 have filed a petition in M.C.O.P.No.720 of 2010, claiming compensation for the death of one Venkatraman in a road accident that took place on 25.12.2009. The Tribunal has awarded compensation to be paid by the appellant. Against which, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

¶20

3.A brief substance of the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.720 of 2010 is as follows:

¶21

On 25.12.2009 at about 15 hours, when the deceased Venkatraman was travelling in TVS XL Super bearing Registration No.TN-49-AY-0817 along the Trichy-Tanjore main road, keeping left side of the road, at that time a lorry bearing Registration No.TCQ8326 that belong to the fifth respondent herein was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came from the back side of the two wheeler and hit against two wheeler. As a result of which, the deceased was thrown out and had fallen down on the ground and at that time, a private bus bearing Registration No.TN-45-AC-1144 that belong to the sixth respondent herein came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and run over the legs of the deceased and the deceased died due to the injuries. The age of the deceased was 49 years and he was earning Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) per month. The claimants claimed a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs only) as compensation.

¶22

4.The brief substance of the counter filed by the appellant herein is as follows:

¶23

The lorry was driven by its driver in a normal speed in careful and cautious manner. The deceased had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner on the middle of the road in front of the lorry and suddenly turned the vehicle without showing any sign. At that time, a private bus bearing Registration No.TN-45-AC-1144 was driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the

¶24

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

¶25

2/4

¶26

C.M.A.(MD)No.1363 of 2013

¶27

deceased. The accident was not due to rash and negligent driving of the appellant's vehicle driver. Only the deceased and the driver of the bus were the cause for the accident. Hence, the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation.

¶28

5.The brief substance of the counter filed by the 7^th respondent herein is as follows:

¶29

The deceased was riding the motor vehicle carelessly and he was knocked down by the lorry driver. The deceased was thrown out of the vehicle to the extreme right of the vehicle. The driver of the bus could not anticipate the falling of the deceased infront of the bus. In spite of applying the brake, the accident had occurred. There is no negligence on the part of the bus driver. The entire negligence is on the part of the appellant and the deceased.

¶30

6.After trial, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,93,640/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Ninety Three Thousand Six Hundred and Forty only) as compensation.

¶31

7.On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the deceased overtake the lorry and tried to turn the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and that the lorry hit from the back side of the deceased and he fell in front of the opposite vehicle. The bus, which was driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the two wheeler and only the deceased and the bus driver were responsible for the accident and that contributory negligence is to be fixed against the deceased and prayed the appeal to be allowed.

¶32

8.On the side of the respondents 1 to 4, it is stated that the Tribunal has not considered the future prospects. The accident took place in the year 2009. Till now the claimants are not having any relief. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) towards love and affection and only notional income was taken for fixing compensation. There should be an enhancement of compensation. The lorry and bus owners and their insurance companies are liable to pay compensation.

¶33

9.Ex.P1, FIR is against both the drivers. P.W.2 was examined as eye witness. Both R.W.1 and R.W.2 were the drivers of the lorry and bus that involved in the accident and their evidence cannot be taken as genuine. Only after being hit by the lorry, the deceased fell down and was dashed by the mini bus. Hence, it is decided that the respondents 6 and 7 are not liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. While overtaking the lorry, the deceased was hit by the lorry from the back side, obviously the lorry's driver is responsible for the accident.

¶34

10.In the above circumstances, it is decided that the accident took place only due to rash and negligent of the lorry driver. There is no dispute regarding the validity of the insurance https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶35

3/4

¶36

C.M.A.(MD)No.1363 of 2013

¶37

policy. Since the accident took place due to rash and negligent of the lorry driver, the appellant is liable to indemnify the owner of the lorry and in turn to pay compensation for the claimants. The claimants have not filed any appeal for enhancement of compensation. The quantum fixed by the Tribunal is reasonable.

¶38

11.Hence, there is nothing sufficient enough to interfere in the order passed in M.C.O.P.No.720 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (I Additional District Court), Trichirappalli. Hence, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No Costs.

¶39

// True Copy //

¶40

MRN

¶41

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID – 19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned.

¶42

¶43

1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, I Additional District Judge, Tiruchirappalli.

¶44

Copy to

¶45

The Section Officer, V.R. Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.(2 copies)

¶46

+1 CC to M/s.B.VIJAY KARTHIKEYAN, Advocate ( SR-17417[F] dated 26/04/2021 )

¶47

C.M.A.(MD)No.1363 of 2013 26.04.2021

¶48

KMK(CO) TR(19.05.2021) 4P 5C

¶49

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

¶50

4/4

The Branch Manager, v. v. Amudha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Branch Manager, v. v. Amudha

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 Reliance General Insurance Vs Ponnarasi

The Branch Manager, Vs Danapal

P.Deepa Vs N.Mohanlal Babu

R.v.Chari @ Venkatasari Vs The Inspector of Police

Boominathan Vs Prema

Boominathan Vs Prema