Appeal against Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Award. Court modified negligence apportionment (90% driver, 10% deceased) and reduced compensation. Claimants entitled to 90% of award plus interest.
Modified negligence to 90% driver / 10% deceased; allowed response to withdraw 90% of award (Rs.21,62,700/-) plus interest.
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.(MD).No.163 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 06.11.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
CMA(MD) No.163 of 2019 and CMP(MD) No.2160 of 2019
Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Represented through its Authorized Signatory 88 Balaji Towers, 1st Floor Thadikompu Road, Dindigul ...appellant/ respondent No.2
Vs. 1.N.Selvaraj 2.S.Nagammal ... Respondent Nos.1&2/ petitioners 3.J.Vasanthakumar ... Respondent No.3/ respondent No.1
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 10.10.2018 in MCOP No.18 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, I Additional District Judge, (FTC), Theni.
C.M.A.(MD).No.163 of 2019
For Appellant : Mr.V.Sakthivel For Respondents : No appearance
J U D G M E N T
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.)
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the award and decree dated 10.10.2018 made in MCOP No.18 of 2017 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, I Additional District Judge, (FTC), Theni.
claim petition for the death of their unmarried son in a road accident that had occurred on 29.01.2017. It is their case that on 29.01.2017, at about 19.20 hrs., when the deceased Lakshmanan was riding a Two wheeler bearing registration No.TN 60 AZ 5518, the two wheeler bearing registration No.TN59 AT 7984 belonged to the 1st respondent, who drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and came in a wrong side, dashed the two wheeler of the deceased, in which, the deceased died on the spot. Pursuant to the same, a case was registered in Crime No. 43/2017 under Section 304(A) IPC. Hence, they claimed a compensation
2/8
C.M.A.(MD).No.163 of 2019
of Rs.25,00,000/- from the respondent/appellant insurance company and the 2nd respondent/owner of the vehicle.
On the side of the appellant insurance company, the driver of the offending vehicle was examined as R.W.2 and no document whatsoever has been marked.
3/8
C.M.A.(MD).No.163 of 2019
insurance company is before this Court with this appeal.
trial Court has not appreciated the manner of the accident and that the deceased was not wearing the helmet, which is mandatory, on the date of the accident and also drew our attention to the oral evidence of R.W.1. Hence, on this ground, the learned counsel contends that the award of the Tribunal may be modified.
submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and also perused the materials available on record.
and Ex.P3 is the final report filed by the police. Admittedly, the police, after investigation of the crime, has fixed the liability on the part of the
4/8
C.M.A.(MD).No.163 of 2019
driver of the vehicle. He was also charge sheeted and faced the trial and hence, the evidence of R.W.1 should be scrutinized with caution. Since it may be a rough statement as per the evidence of R.W.1, we find that at the time of accident, the deceased was not wearing the helmet. Considering the evidence of P.W.2 with that of R.W.1 coupled with the documentary evidence, Ex.P3 final report, we find that both the vehicle involved are two wheelers. However, the vehicle, which, the deceased was riding, has more engine power and the deceased was not wearing the helmet and hence, following the settled proposition of law, we are inclined to fix 10% negligence on the part of the deceased and 90% negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. Accordingly, the finding of the trial Court with regard to negligence is hereby modified to that of contributory negligence at the rate of 90% on the driver of the appellant and 10% on the deceased.
on the oral evidence of P.W.3, Manager of the company, where the deceased was employed, coupled with Ex.P1-FIR, Ex.P9-Attendance Register and Ex.P10-Payment voucher, the tribunal has fixed the income
5/8
C.M.A.(MD).No.163 of 2019
of the deceased, applied proper multiplier. Taking note of the fact that the claim petitioners are the parents of the deceased, the tribunal has also deducted 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased, as per the judgment of the Supreme Court and hence, on the point of quantum of compensation, we do not find any error.
6/8
C.M.A.(MD).No.163 of 2019
with interest, if any. The claimants are permitted to withdraw the entire award amount with proportionate interest and costs as apportioned by the Tribunal. No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
(T.K.R.,J.) (P.B.B.,J.) 06.11.2023
NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No
RR
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, I Additional District Judge, (FTC), Theni
2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
7/8
C.M.A.(MD).No.163 of 2019
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN,J. AND P.B.BALAJI, J.
RR
CMA(MD) No.163 of 2019
06.11.2023
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should modify the Tribunal's finding on negligence and the quantum of compensation awarded.
Whether the contributory negligence of the deceased rider was established justifying a reduction in compensation.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
P.B.BALAJI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
