Dismissed

Sarathkumar v. G.Nagarani

Madras HC8 Aug 2024CMA(MD)/422/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed an appeal challenging the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award in a road accident case involving an auto-rickshaw and a tractor. The High Court upheld the compensation quantum and the finding that the tractor owner bore sole negligence liability.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed. No costs. Appellant free to recover compensation from the first respondent.

Sarathkumar Vs G.Nagarani — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.M.A.(MD) No.422 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 08.08.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶6

C.M.A.(MD) No.422 of 2021

¶7

Sarathkumar S/o.Selvaraj

¶8

... Appellant

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.G.Nagarani W/o.Ganesh Kumar 2.T.Govindaraj S/o.Thangavel 3.The Branch Manager, IFFCO TOKYO General Insurance Company Ltd., Madurai, Madurai Town, Bye Pass Road, Ponmeni, Chandragandhi Nagar, Pritham Plaza Complex. ... Respondents

¶11

Prayer:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 praying to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 11.12.2014 made in M.C.O.P.No.194 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal Sub Court), Dindigul.

¶12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 1 of 8_

¶13

C.M.A.(MD) No.422 of 2021

¶14

For Appellant : Mr.A.Jayaramachandran For R2 : No appearance For R3 : Mr.V.Sakthivel

¶15

J U D G M E N T

¶16

The claimant has filed this instant appeal challenging the Tribunal's finding that the first respondent, the owner of the vehicle, is liable for paying compensation.

¶17

The appellant/claimant had filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No. 194 of 2014 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal Sub Court), Dindigul stating that on 13.01.2011, at about 6:30 p.m., while he was traveling with others in an auto-rickshaw bearing Registration No.TN-57-P-6886 insured with the third respondent Insurance Company and owned by the second respondent, the driver of the tractor bearing Registration No. TN-57-K-0097 came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and collided with the auto-rickshaw, as a result of which, the appellant/claimant suffered multiple grievous injuries.

¶18

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

¶19

____________ Page No. 2 of 8_

¶20

C.M.A.(MD) No.422 of 2021

¶21

The first and second respondents had remained exparte before the Tribunal. The third respondent Insurance Company had filed counter affidavit stating that the accident took place only due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor's driver and not due to any negligence on the part of the auto-rickshaw driver and therefore, they are not liable to pay compensation.

¶22

Before the Tribunal, the appellant/claimant had examined himself as P.W.1 and the Doctor who treated him as P.W.2 and marked four documents as Exs.P1 to P4. The third respondent Insurance Company had examined its officer as R.W.1.

¶23

The Tribunal after taking into consideration of the oral and documentary evidences held that the accident took place only due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor's driver owned by the first respondent and directed the first respondent to pay the compensation of Rs.77,000/- together with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of

¶24

claim petition till the date of realization and costs, to the appellant/claimant.

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 3 of 8_

¶26

C.M.A.(MD) No.422 of 2021

¶27

The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submitted that the

¶28

Tribunal ought not to have fixed the entire liability on the driver of the tractor and ought to have also fixed liability on the driver of the autorickshaw insured with the third respondent Insurance Company; that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is meagre.

¶29

The learned counsel for the third respondent Insurance Company

¶30

submitted that the evidence of the appellant/claimant who was examined as P.W.1 would itself show that the accident took place only due to the negligence of the driver of the tractor and therefore, the Tribunal has rightly fixed the entire liability on the first respondent, the owner of the tractor and no interference is called for.

¶31

This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions.

¶32

The questions involved in the instant appeal are as follows:-

¶33

i. Whether the Tribunal has awarded a just and reasonable compensation to the appellant/claimant?

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 4 of 8_

¶35

C.M.A.(MD) No.422 of 2021

¶36

ii. Whether the Tribunal is right in fixing the entire liability on the driver of the tractor owned by the first respondent and directing the first respondent to pay the compensation?

¶37

As regards the first question on the quantum of compensation, this Court, on perusal of the award, finds that the Tribunal assessed the functional disability of the appellant/claimant at 20% and awarded a sum of Rs.60,000/- (20 x Rs.3,000/-) under the head of partial permanent disability. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal is just and reasonable in view of the nature of injury suffered by the appellant/claimant and the nature of evidence let in by the appellant/claimant. The compensation awarded under the other heads, namely pain and suffering, extra nourishment, attendant charges, and transport charges, is also just and reasonable. Therefore, no interference is called for.

¶38

As regards the second question on liability, this Court is of the view that the claim petition and the evidence of P.W.1, the appellant/claimant would show that there was no fault on the side of the driver of the auto-rickshaw. The relevant portion of the evidence of P.W.

¶39

1, the appellant/claimant reads as under:-

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 5 of 8_

¶41

C.M.A.(MD) No.422 of 2021

¶42

“... vdJ epUgz thf;F%yj;jpy; vjpNute;j buhf;lH Xl;LdH ehd; gazk; nra;j Ml;Nlhtpd; kPJ mjpNtfkhfTk; ftdf;FiwthfTk; te;J Nkhjpajhf $wpAs;Nsd;. Ml;Nlh Xl;LdH kPJ jtW ,Ug;gjhf ehd; $wtpy;iy. ,og;gPl;Lj;njhifAk; buhf;lH chpikahshpd; kPJjhd; Nfl;Ls;Nsd; vd;why; rhpjhd;...”

¶43

There is no other contra evidence. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal has rightly fixed the entire liability on the first respondent and directed the first respondent to pay the compensation. Thus, the instant appeal is liable to be dismissed. However, the appellant is at liberty to recover the compensation amount from the first respondent in the manner known to law.

¶44

In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No

¶45

costs.

¶46

08.08.2024

¶47

Index: Yes/ No Neutral Citation: Yes / No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order

¶48

JEN

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 6 of 8_

¶50

C.M.A.(MD) No.422 of 2021

¶51

Copy To:

¶52

The Principal Sub Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dindigul.

¶53

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 7 of 8_

¶54

C.M.A.(MD) No.422 of 2021

¶55

SUNDER MOHAN, J.

¶56

JEN

¶57

C.M.A.(MD) No.422 of 2021

¶58

08.08.2024

¶59

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 8 of 8_

Sarathkumar v. G.Nagarani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarathkumar v. G.Nagarani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S. Subramanian Vs G.P.Loganathan

Ponnusastha Vs Mathaiyan

The Oriental Insurance Company Vs Krishnathevar

A.Anbalagan Vs the Inspector General of

P.Lakshmanan Vs the Inspector General of

M.Sherin Jahan Vs M.Masood Khan