C.M.A. No. 3193 of 2017 dismissed the appeal filed by Oriental Insurance Company against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's order fixing 50% contributory negligence on drivers of both vehicles involved in a fatal road accident.
The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed and the findings of the Tribunal were confirmed. 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.3193 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 12.12.2022
Pronounced on 27.01.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
C.M.A.No. 3193 of 2017 and C.M.P.No. 16666 of 2018
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd having Office at 1st Floor, Gopal Rao Library Building Town Hall Road, Kumbakonam – 612 001
.. Appellant
Versus
1.Sellammal
7.Sundaralakshmi Fuel Service Ltd SFMP/106/3, Sithar Kovil Main Road Sivathapuram Post, Salem – 636 307
8.Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited having office at 9/111, Mangalam Building, 4 Roads Salem – 636 009
.. Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and Decree dated 22.09.2016 made in MCOP.No.1315 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special District Court ) Salem.
1/8
C.M.A.No.3193 of 2017
For Appellant : Mr.R.Vinod for M/s.Elveera Ravindran For Respondents : Mr.Ma.Pa.Thangavel for R1 to R5 R6 – NDW R7- No appearance Mr.G.Vasudevan for R8
JUDGMENT
The respondents 1 to 5 are the claim petitioners, before the Tribunal and
the owner of the Maruthi Car is the sixth respondent and its Insurance Company is the appellant herein; the respondents 7 and 8 are the owner of the Scorpio car and its Insurance Company respectively.
2/8
C.M.A.No.3193 of 2017
driver of the Maruthi Car is examined as RW4, while the driver of the Scorpio Car is insured with the Royal Insurance Company has been examined as RW2. Ex.P3 is the rough sketch.
3/8
C.M.A.No.3193 of 2017
registration number in TN.38.AV.4170, that his vehicle did not not make any impact and he is not responsible for the death of the deceased, ought to have been accepted and the accident has taken place due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the Scorpio Car, who hit the Maruthi Car from behind. Thereby, the Maruthi Car has moved forward due to the impact and drove over the person who had fallen on the road.
the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the manner of the accident and fixed the contributory negligence at 50% each.
the driver of the Maruthi Car and the driver of the Scorpio Car are at composite negligence at the rate of 50% or not?
C.M.A.No.3193 of 2017
seen that the deceased Mr.Thangadurai after completing his job was returning to his home in his two wheeler on 02.06.2011 at about 08.00 PM near Vinayaga Mission Medical College, at that time, one vehicle from the behind came and dashed the deceased and fled away. As a result, he fell down and on seeing the person on the road, the driver of the Maruthi Car, (the sixth respondent herein) has applied the break and stopped the vehicle few steps before the person who was lying on the road (subsequently died). At that time, the Scorpio Vehicle having registration number in TN.30.K.2525 owned by the seventh respondent insured with the eighth respondent herein came and dashed from the behind of the Maruthi Car. Due to the impact of the dashing of the Scorpio Car from the behind, the Maruthi Vehicle moved forward and ran over the Thangadurai who was on the road. It is also the evidence of RW2, the driver of the Scorpio Car that his vehicle was dashed by another vehicle, who had also fled away. Thus, this Court finds that there is involvement of four vehicles in the accident.
Mr.Thangadurai, as a result, he fell down on the road and sustained minor injury and the driver of the Maruthi car, who came from behind has applied the 5/8
C.M.A.No.3193 of 2017
break and stopped the vehicle few steps away from the person (deceased). Since, the Scorpio Vehicle dashed the Maruthi Car from behind, the Maruti Vehicle ran over the person laying on the road, consequently, resulted in the death of the deceased.
6/8
C.M.A.No.3193 of 2017
Court. Hence, this Court finds that on a comprehensive of reading of cross examination of PW2 and the evidences of RW2 (Mr.Senthil Kumar, the driver of the Scorpio Car) and RW4 (Mr.Madasamy, the driver of the Maruthi Car), the Trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that both the vehicle drivers are at fault at the rate of 50% each and the same does not warrant any interference at this appeal stage, as the same does not suffer from any irregularities or illegalities.
27.01.2023
Internet : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order dhk
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN.J,
dhk
To
C.M.A.No.3193 of 2017
1.The Presiding Officer Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special District Court ) Salem.
Pre-delivery Judgment made in C.M.A.No.3193 of 2017
27.01.2023
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the driver of the Maruthi Car and the driver of the Scorpio Car were at composite negligence of 50% each?
Whether the Trial Court's finding of 50% contributory negligence on both drivers warrants interference at the appeal stage?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd
Sellammal
Kokila
Minor Boopathi
Minor Nandakumar
RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
