The High Court dismissed an appeal against an award of Rs. 2 lakhs for a motor accident. The court upheld the Tribunal's finding that the driver did not possess a valid license and rejected the appeal arguments raising negligence by a third party.
The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.M.A.No.1137 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 16.12.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN
C.M.A.No.1137 of 2011 and
M.P.No.1 of 2011
1.P.Janarthanan (Died)
2.J.Balakrishnan
3.Mahalakshmi
...Appellants
(Appellants 2 and 3 are brought on record as L.Rs of the deceased sole appellant viz., P.Janarthanan vide court order dated14.02.2019 made in CMP.No.21987 to 21990 of 2018)
Vs.
1.P.Murugaraju 2.Sumathi 3.Sundari
PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the Award and Decree passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate Court) at Perambalur, dated 24.02.2011 in M.C.O.P.No.202 of 2009.
1/6
C.M.A.No.1137 of 2011
For Appellants : M/s.P.Valliappan for P.V. Law Associates For Respondents 1 to 3 : Mr.M.Punitha Nithyarani for Mr. A.A.Venkatesan For Respondent 4 : Ms.I.Malar
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed by the appellants/LRs of the 1st respondent
therein seeking to set aside the Award and Decree passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate Court) at Perambalur, dated 24.02.2011 in M.C.O.P.No.202 of 2009.
2. The case in brief, is as follows:
On the fateful day, i.e., on 17.02.2009, at about 05.30 p.m., the driver of the mini bus bearing Registration No.TN-23-B-8393 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against a tamarind tree due to which the branches of the tree pierced the chest of the deceased Thangavel and consequently he died in the accident. The surviving legal heirs of the deceased has filed a claim petition before the Tribunal, seeking compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. On consideration of the materials and evidence available on record, the Tribunal has held that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 1st respondent and accordingly awarded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to be paid by the Insurance Company and recover the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/6
C.M.A.No.1137 of 2011
same from the 1st respondent therein with interest at 7.5% and costs. Aggrieved
by the quantum of compensation, the appellants/claimants has filed this appeal.
3/6
C.M.A.No.1137 of 2011
the vehicle involved in accident was driven by Rangaraju and not by Rathinam. The said Rangaraju had a valid driving licence and therefore, there is no violation of policy conditions. The Tribunal has erred in awarding a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- without any basis. It also erred in directing the 4th respondent to pay the compensation and recover the same from the appellant. It erred in discarding the evidence of RW2 /Rangaraju, the driver of the vehicle, who had a valid driving licence and who drove the vehicle, at the time of accident. The police FIR has been registered contra to the real facts in an erratic manner. This petition is bad for non-joinder of the tractor and trailer. Hence, he prays to allow this appeal.
4/6
C.M.A.No.1137 of 2011
5/6
C.M.A.No.1137 of 2011
A.A.NAKKIRAN, J.
gv
16.12.2022
Index :Yes/No Internet:Yes/No gv To
C.M.A.No.1137 of 2011
and M.P.No.1 of 2011
6/6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal erred in finding the driver lacked a valid license and awarding compensation.
Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal requires interference.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
J. Balakrishnan
Mahalakshmi
P. Murugaraju
Sumathi
Sundari
United Insurance Company Limited
A.A. Nakkiran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
