Insurance company appealed a fatal motor accident award, arguing no eye witness was examined. The court found PW2 was an eye witness whose evidence stood uncontradicted and rejected the drunkenness claim since the post-mortem showed no alcohol. Appeal dismissed; compensation upheld.
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.4607 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.04.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
C.M.A.No.4607 of 2019
The Branch Manger, United India Insurance Company Ltd., Neela South Veedhi, Nagapattinam Town, Taluk & District.
... Appellant
Vs.
1.Smt.Vanitha 2.Minor.Devi priya 3.Minor.Sasirekha 4.Minor.Parameswaran (Minor respondent Nos.2 to 4 are Rep. through their Mother and Natural Guardian and Next Friend Smt.Vanitha / 1st respondent herein)
5.R.Rengasamy 6.Samuthiram 7.Rathinam
... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the fair and decreetal dated 06.06.2018 made in M.C.O.P. No.37 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Before the Subordinate Judge, Mannargudi).
1/6
C.M.A.No.4607 of 2019
For Appellant : Ms.I.Malar For Respondents : No appearance
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company, challenging the impugned award, primarily aggrieved by the adverse findings of negligence given by the Tribunal against the driver of the vehicle insured with the appellant. According to the appellant, no eye witness was examined on the side of the claimants before the Tribunal. But, despite the same, the Tribunal has passed an award holding that the driver of the vehicle insured with the appellant is responsible for the cause of the accident.
"Ex.P1 is the First Information Report dated
2/6
C.M.A.No.4607 of 2019
25.07.2010
Ex.P2 is the Post Mortem Report dated 25.07.2010 Ex.P3 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report dated 28.08.2010
Ex.P4 is the Death Certificate dated 03.08.2010 Ex.P5 is the Insurance Policy dated 24.03.2010 Ex.P6 is the Family Card Ex.P7 is the Driving Licence Ex.P8 is the R.C. Book Ex.P9 is the Election Identity Card"
the side of the appellant / Insurance Company, their investigation report was marked as Ex.R1. Their official was also examined as a witness (RW1). PW2 is the eye witness examined on the side of the respondents / claimants. He has also deposed that the cause of the accident which resulted in the death of the victim was a tractor insured with the appellant. Though, the investigation report (Ex.R1) which is not an independent report, but is a report submitted by the appellant's own official, would reveal that the victim was in a drunken state, the said report cannot be accepted, as the postmortem certificate, marked as Ex.P2, does not reveal any alcohol traces in the body of the deceased. The Tribunal has rightly held that the
3/6
C.M.A.No.4607 of 2019
contention of the appellant / Insurance Company that only due to the drunken state, the victim had died, cannot be accepted. The evidence of the eye witness (PW2) has not been disproved by any contra evidence produced by the appellant / Insurance Company. The Tribunal has rightly, based on preponderance of probability has held the appellant / Insurance Company liable to pay the compensation. The appellant / Insurance Company has not questioned the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. While that be so, this Court is not interfering with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the impugned award.
4. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. Eventhough, notice was ordered to the respondents in this appeal, till date, the respondents have not been served. Since this appeal is dismissed, there is no necessity for the appellant to serve notice on the respondents. No costs.
03.04.2024
Index : Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes / No Neutral Citation Case: Yes / No ab
4/6
C.M.A.No.4607 of 2019
To
1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Before the Subordinate Judge, Mannargudi).
2. The Section officer, Record Section, High Court of Madras.
5/6
C.M.A.No.4607 of 2019
ABDUL QUDDHOSE. J.,
ab
C.M.A.No.4607 of 2019
03.04.2024
6/6
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal erred in finding negligence against the insured tractor's driver without examining an independent eye witness.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd.
Smt.Vanitha
Minor.Devi Priya
Minor.Sasirekha
Minor.Parameswaran
R.Rengasamy
Abdul Quddhose
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
