Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation after Tribunal dismissed a claim by a loadman injured when a train hit his employer's tractor at an unmanned level crossing. The alleged driver denied driving and FIR named the appellant; court upheld Tribunal's dismissal.
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.503 of 2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 12.01.2024
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL
C.M.A.(MD)No.503 of 2013
P.Alagarraj ..Appellant/Petitioner
.vs.
.. Respondents/ Respondents
Prayer : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to allow this appeal and enhance the award amount in M.C.O.P.No. 215 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Sub Court, Srivilliputhur, dated 12.01.2012.
For Appellants : Mr.T.Selvakumaran For R1 : Mr.M.P.Senthil For R2 : Mr.R.Sundar Srinivasan For R3 : Mr.P.Subbiah (CG Senior Panel Counsel)
C.M.A.(MD)No.503 of 2013
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed as against the order passed in M.C.O.P.No. 215 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Sub Court, Srivilliputhur, dated 12.01.2012, wherein the appellant herein has filed a petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- to the injuries sustained by him in the accident.
4 . The brief facts of the petition averments are as follows: The petitioner was a loadman of the first respondent tractor and trailor bearing Reg. No.TN 67 Y 0137 and TN 67 Y 0542 respectively. Whileso, on 08.11.1999 when the tractor was proceedings to pick up export load at about 8.30 a.m., while crossing level crossing near Appanaickanpatti a train came an hour late and without giving any whistle any proper warning dashed against the tractor. The petitioner seated near the driver seat was thrown out and sustained severe
C.M.A.(MD)No.503 of 2013
injuries and he permanently disabled and thereby he filed this petition claiming compensation
5. The brief averments in the counter filed by the second
respondent are as follows : The first respondent vehicle was insured with the second respondent on the date of accident but the manner of accident is suppressed. The tractor was driven by the petitioner himself and the railway police have registered First Information Report as against this petitioner and he did not have any valid license to drive the tractor. The accident took place only due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the tractor,i.e., the petitioner. The charge sheet was filed against one Vijayakumar, through influence and collusion between the owner of the vehicle and the alleged driver, hence the petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. The brief averments in the counter filed by the third
respondent are as follows: As per Motor Vehicles Act it is the duty of the approaching vehicle to stop the vehicle at level crossing and proceed safely. It is unmanned level crossing and the driver of the tractor did not observe the traffic rules and had driven the tractor rashly and negligently and caused accident. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the tractor, therefore the petition is liable to be dismissed.
C.M.A.(MD)No.503 of 2013
they have examined P.W.1 to P.W.3 and marked exhibits Exs.P.1 to P.8. On the side of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.R.1 was marked. After hearing both sides and perusing the documents available on record, the Tribunal has dismissed the petition. As against the dismissal order passed by the Tribunal the petitioner has preferred this appeal on various grounds
C.M.A.(MD)No.503 of 2013
9.The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent would contend that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the driver of the tractor. As per Motor Vehicle Act, while crossing the railway level crossing the driver of the vehicle has to verify and ensure that no train is coming in the railway track and then they can cross the level crossing but without noticing the train negligently driven the tractor and dashed against the train. Therefore the railway department is not responsible for the accident, therefore the petition filed against the railway department is liable to be dismissed.
C.M.A.(MD)No.503 of 2013
the driver of the tractor was examined as P.W.3 and he denied the driving of the vehicle on the date of accident and also he denied that he did not go to any Court and did not pay any fine amount before the Court. Therefore he totally denied the driving of the first respondent vehicle on the date of accident. Therefore after considering all the aspects the Tribunal dismissed the application. Now the petitioner has preferred this appeal without any valid grounds, therefore the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
i) Whether the appeal is liable to be allowed or not?
C.M.A.(MD)No.503 of 2013
the petitioner has marked Ex.P.1 certified copy of charge sheet, Ex.P.2certified copy of judgment passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Virudhunagar in STC No.328 of 2000,Ex.P.3 certified copy of wound certificate, Ex.P.4 treatment particulars of the petitioner and also filed Ex.P.6 permanent disability certificate.
C.M.A.(MD)No.503 of 2013
particularly he denied the driving of the vehicle on the date of accident. Further the First Information Report was also registered as against the petitioner and the petitioner has suppressed the fact and not even disclosed about the registration of the First Information Report against him. Therefore the Tribunal after taking into consideration of all the aspects correctly dismissed the petition and this Court has no warrant to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal and therefore this appeal has no merits and is liable to be dismissed.
12.01.2024
NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No aav
To:
2.The Record Keeper, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
C.M.A.(MD)No.503 of 2013
P. DHANABAL,J.
aav
C.M.A.(MD)No.503 of 2013
12.01.2024
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appeal against dismissal of the claim for compensation for injuries sustained in a train-tractor collision at an unmanned level crossing should be allowed?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
P.Alagarraj
S.Ramaraj
The New India Assurance Company Ltd
Union of India (Southern Railway)
P. Dhanabal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
