Remanded

Krishnan(Died) v. Elayaraja

Madras HC12 Nov 2024CMA/4552/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against a tribunal order dismissing a motor accident claim. The High Court observed that the tribunal rightly dismissed the claim for failure to implead the moped rider/owner. The matter was remanded for impleading those parties.

What did the court decide?

Matter remanded to the trial court for impleading the owner and insurer of the moped bearing Regn.No.TN 23 P 4240 to enable enquiry on merits.

Krishnan(Died) Vs Elayaraja — Madras HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

CMA.No.4552 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 12.11.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI

¶6

C.M.A.NO.4552 OF 2019

¶7

Krishnan (died)

¶8

Krishnaveni, W/o.Late Krishnan

¶9

Sumathi

¶10

Murugan

¶11

(Appellants 2 to 4 brought on record as legal heirs of deceased 1^st appellant vide this court order dated 07.02.2024 made in CMP.Nos.26889, 26890 and 26893 of 2023 in CMA.4552/2019

¶12

... Appellants

¶13

/vs/

¶14

Elayaraja

¶15

United India Insurance Co.Ltd., represented by its Branch Manager, KBS Motor Building, 36, Katpadi Road, Gandhi Nagar, Vellore ... Respondents

¶16

Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree in M.C.O.P.No.258 of 2014 dated 12.04.2017 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III Additional District Judge, Vellore and consequently award a reasonable compensation in M.C.O.P.No.258 of 2014 as prayed for.

¶17

For Appellants ... Mr. C.V. Kumar

¶18

1/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

CMA.No.4552 of 2019

¶20

For Respondents .... Mr. P. Sankaranarayanan for R2 R1- No appearance

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree in M.C.O.P.No.258 of 2014 dated 12.04.2017 on the file of Motor

¶23

Accident Claims Tribunal, III Additional District Judge, Vellore

¶24

The facts leading to filing of this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is as follows:-

¶25

(i) On 13.11.2011, the deceased appellant was travelling in TVS 50 moped bearing Regn.No.TN-23-P-4240 as a pillion rider, in KrishnagiriVaniyambadi Main Road at Thanneerpandal. The moped was driven by one Raja and when he attempted to cross the U turning, a motor cycle bearing Regn.No.KA 04 HC 6309 without seeing the moped passing through the U turn, coming from Krishnagiri side to Vaniyambadi side, dashed the against the moped driven by the above said Raja. The above said two wheeler belongs to the 1^st respondent and insured with the 2^nd respondent. The accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the two wheeler. On account of the accident, the deceased

¶26

2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

CMA.No.4552 of 2019

¶28

was thrown away from the motor cycle and he sustained fatal injuries and

¶29

also fracture on 9^th right side rib and on both bones of his right leg.

¶30

(i) He took treatment as inpatient in Government Vellore Medical college from 13.11.2011 and discharged from hospital on 21.11.2011 and further took treatment in private hospital at Tirupattur.

¶31

(iii) Since the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the motor cycle, the 1^st appellant moved a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and III Additional District Judge, Vellore, Tirupattur claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.

¶32

(iv) According to the claimant, since the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Two wheeler bearing Regn.No.KA 04 HC 6309, which was owned by the 1^st respondent and insured with the 2^nd respondent, they were jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation claimed by the claimant.

¶33

(v) Before the claims tribunal, on the side of the claimant, witnesses PW1 and PW2 were examined and exhibits Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11 were marked. On the side of the respondents, RW1 was examined as witness and Ex.R1 was marked.

¶34

(vi) The tribunal, on appreciation of oral evidence of PW1, held that

¶35

3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

CMA.No.4552 of 2019

¶37

'....except the oral evidence of the petitioner as PW1, there is no other oral or documentary evidences produced on the side of the petitioner to prove the same.' The tribunal further held that the claimant has not impleaded the rider and owner of the TVS 50 moped bearing Regn.No.TN 23 P 4240 as party, so no order can be passed against them behind their back without adding them as respondents. Holding so, the tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the petitioner has miserably failed to prove his contention that the accident would have happened due to the act of the 1^st respondent.

¶38

(vii) Aggrieved against the order passed by the tribunal, the appellants /claimants have preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

¶39

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company.

¶40

Perusal of the records would go to show that while the deceased

¶41

was travelling in the moped as a pillion driver, a motor cycle bearing Regn.No.KA 04 HC 6309 came in the opposite direction and dashed against the moped and on account of the impact, the pillion rider of the

¶42

4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

CMA.No.4552 of 2019

¶44

moped sustained fatal injuries. It is seen that the tribunal, in the impugned order, held that since the claimant has not impleaded the rider and owner of the moped bearing Regn.No.TN 23 P 4240, in which the deceased travelled as a pillion rider, as a party to the proceedings, it cannot pass any order behind their back without adding them as respondents. The tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition on the sole ground that the appellants/ claimants have miserably failed to prove that the accident had happened due to the act of the 1^st respondent.

¶45

In view of the above discussion, this Court feels that it is appropriate for the appellants to implead the owner and insurer of the Moped bearing Regn.No.TN 23 P 4240, in which the deceased travelled as a pillion rider. The matter is remanded back to the trial court for impleading the owner and insurer of the vehicle bearing Regn.No.TN 23 P 4240. The trial court, after giving opportunity to the newly impleaded parties, enquire in to the matter and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law.

¶46

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of with the above

¶47

5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CMA.No.4552 of 2019

direction.

12.11.2024

msr Index:yes/no Internet:

¶52

To The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III Additional District Judge, Vellore.

¶53

M. DHANDAPANI, J.

¶54

msr

¶55

6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶56

CMA.No.4552 of 2019

¶57

C.M.A.NO.4552 OF 2019

¶58

12.11.2024

¶59

7/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Krishnan(Died) v. Elayaraja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishnan(Died) v. Elayaraja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs S.Dhanapal

Divisional Manager Vs K. Ramraj

The Divisional Manager Vs R.Kanaga

The United Iindia Insurance Co. Vs Vanitha

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Williams,(Died)

C.Nallasivam Vs Karuappana Gounder(Died)