Claimant injured in a two-wheeler head-on collision sought accident compensation; the Tribunal had dismissed his claim holding him solely negligent. The court found the earlier award in the other rider's claim, confirming the claimant's fault, binding on him, and upheld the Tribunal's finding that he rode on the wrong side and was the tortfeasor.
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.161 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 20.02.2024
Pronounced on : 26.04.2024
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
C.M.A.(MD)No.161 of 2018
R.Ramakrishnan
... Appellant/ Petitioner
Vs.
1/14
C.M.A.(MD)No.161 of 2018
Prayer : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, to set aside the order dated 06.11.2017 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1744 of 2008 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum IV Additional Sub Court, Madurai.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Vijay Anand for S.Sitharthan For R2 & R4 : Mr.C.Jawahar Ravindran
JUDGMENT
The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order passed in M.C.O.P.No.1744 of 2008 dated 06.11.2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/IV Additional Subordinate Court, Madurai, dismissing the claim petition.
C.M.A.(MD)No.161 of 2018
C.M.A.(MD)No.161 of 2018
other witnesses as P.W.2 to P.W.4 and exhibited 20 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.20. The fourth respondent has examined its Assistant Manager Pandiarajan as R.W.1 and summoned and examined the Sub Inspector of Police, Thirupparankundram Police Station as R.W.2 and exhibited 3 documents as Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.3 and one witness document as Ex.X.1. The respondents 1 and 3 had remained ex parte.
No.TN-59-S-7470, which was driven by the claimant, was owned by the third respondent and the same was insured with the fourth respondent. It is also not in dispute that the first respondent was the owner-cum-rider of the
C.M.A.(MD)No.161 of 2018
two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-59-R-5657 at the time of accident and his vehicle was insured with the second respondent. Since the respondents 2 and 4 are one and same insurance company, the second respondent has adopted the counter filed by the fourth respondent.
C.M.A.(MD)No.161 of 2018
2 two wheelers are not in dispute.
C.M.A.(MD)No.161 of 2018
rider of the two wheeler in TN-59-S-7470 Ramakrishnan was only responsible for the accident. The jurisdictional police, after completing the investigation, has filed a final report against the claimant alleging that the accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the claimant Ramakrishnan.
C.M.A.(MD)No.161 of 2018
as against the claimant cannot be relied on by the claimant to show that he was not at fault. Even assuming for arguments sake that even if the claimant was acquitted by the criminal Court by holding that the charge of rash and negligent driving was not proved, the same will not bind the Tribunal and that by itself is not sufficient to hold that the claimant was not at fault. It is settled law that the opinion of the investigating officer in the final report filed by him or the judgment of the criminal Court is not binding on the Tribunal and the Tribunal is duty bound to consider the evidence available before it and to decide independently as to who was responsible for the accident.
that since in the connected claim petition filed by the first respondent, there was a specific finding given by the Tribunal that the present claimant alone was responsible for the accident and on that basis, mulcted liability on the owner and insurer of the vehicle driven by the claimant herein and that this Court has also confirmed the same in the appeal filed by the insurer and as such, the finding of the Tribunal that the accident now in dispute was occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the
C.M.A.(MD)No.161 of 2018
claimant has attained finality and that therefore, the present claimant is not entitled to canvass again that he was not at fault. This Court finds much merits in the said contention. But the learned counsel appearing for the claimant would submit that since the claimant is not a party to the other claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.19 of 2007, the finding recorded by the Tribunal, which was confirmed by the appellate Court, is not binding on the claimant and that therefore, he is certainly entitled to take a defence and to prove that he was not responsible for the accident. But as rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the insurer, owner of the vehicle, which was driven by the claimant and the insurer of the said vehicle were the parties in the earlier claim petition, that the driver or rider cannot be considered as a necessary party and that therefore, even though the claimant is not a party, the finding given by the Tribunal and by the appellate Court are very much binding on the claimant.
Madurai to Thirupparankundram from north to south on the left side of Madurai to Thirupparankundram road and at that time, the first respondent came in the opposite direction i.e., from south to north. The investigating
C.M.A.(MD)No.161 of 2018
officer, in the rough sketch as well as in the observation mahazar, has specifically stated that the accident was occurred on the western extremity of the main road and on that basis, laid the final report.
C.M.A.(MD)No.161 of 2018
involved in the accident, under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and record his statement and with the said observation, the petition was ordered to be dismissed. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant would submit that the police authorities has not chosen to record the statement of the claimant and they have violated the order of this Court. But as rightly observed by the learned trial Judge, if the claimant is aggrieved by his non-examination under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as directed by this Court, he could have very well approached the High Court with contempt proceedings. But admittedly, the claimant has not taken any such proceedings.
Police Station would depose on the basis of the records available and according to him, perusal of the records would reveal that the claimant
C.M.A.(MD)No.161 of 2018
alone rode his bike on the wrong side of the road and caused the accident. As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the insurer, in case, if the claimant was only proceeding on the left side i.e., on the east of north-south main road, there was no chance or possibility for the accident to have occurred on the western extremity of the north-south road. As rightly observed by the Tribunal, if the claimant was riding his bike on the proper side, the accident could have occurred on the eastern side of the road. Considering the entire evidence available on record, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the claimant alone was responsible for the accident and as such, the finding of the Tribunal in this regard cannot be found fault with. The Tribunal, by holding that the claimant being the tortfeasor, is not entitled for the claim, has rightly dismissed the claim petition. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of the dismissal passed by the Tribunal and as such, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
C.M.A.(MD)No.161 of 2018
Parties are directed to bear their own costs.
26.04.2024
NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No csm
To:
C.M.A.(MD)No.161 of 2018
K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.
csm
Pre-Delivery Order made in C.M.A.(MD)No.161 of 2018
Dated : 26.04.2024
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the claimant, injured in a two-wheeler collision, was entitled to compensation despite the Tribunal's finding that he alone was negligent.
Whether the Lok Adalat settlement of the criminal charge against the claimant showed he was not at fault.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
R.Ramakrishnan
M.Irulandi
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., represented through its Divisional Manager, Madurai
Sri Anandakrishnan & Company, represented through its Partner Selva Murugan, Madurai
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., represented through its Branch Manager, CBOI, Madurai
K. Murali Shankar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
