The Madras High Court allowed the learned tribunal's finding that the appellant was at fault for negligence and noted lack of personal accident rider coverage, dismissing the appeal against the claim rejection.
The civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. The Tribunal's order dated 19.06.2023 remains in force. No costs.
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.919 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 02.08.2024
DELIVERED ON : 28.08.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
C.M.A.(MD).No.919 of 2023
Krishna Suresh
... Appellant/Claimant
Vs.
... Respondents/Respondents
PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, to call for the record relating to the fair and decreetal order passed by the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claim Tribunal,
1/8
C.M.A.(MD).No.919 of 2023
Nagercoil, cum II Additional Sub Court, Nagercoil in M.C.O.P.No.56 of 2018, dated 19.06.2023 and set aside the same.
For Appellant : Mr.C.Ezhilarasu
For Respondents : Mr.I.Robert Chandra Kumar for R3 Mr.A.S.Mathialagan for R4 Mr.K.Vamanan for R5 R1 – Exparte
R2 – No Appearance
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been directed against the fair and decreetal order
passed by the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claim Tribunal, Nagercoil, cum II Additional Sub Court, Nagercoil in M.C.O.P.No.56 of 2018, dated
19.06.2023 and set aside the same.
2.The facts in brief:
On 17.04.2015, the petitioner was returned from the College to his
house in a vehicle bearing Registration No.74 Q 7569. When he was nearing RC Church, Karavilai East on the Erumbukadu to Rajakamangalam Road at about 5.45 p.m. One Mr.Paramakrishnan @ Radhakrishnan was riding his scooty in front of his vehicle in the very
same direction. At that time, ambassador car bearing registration No.TN
2/8
C.M.A.(MD).No.919 of 2023
74 L 1703 was driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner in the opposite direction and hit the petitioner's vehicle. In the accident both were thrown out. The petitioner sustained grievous injuries. There was fracture on his right leg. He was taken to PPM Orthopedic hospital Rajakkamangalam and took treatment up to 24.04.2015. Because of the accidental injuries, he was not in position to continue his work as before. Apart from that the vehicle was also completely damaged. Claiming compensation amount of Rs.4,10,000/-, the claim application was filed.
3.That was resisted by the second respondent in the main petition namely, Thayabaran, stating that a case was registered only against the claimant in Crime No.181 of 2015 before Rajakkamangalam Police Station. The third respondent namely New India Assurance Company filed the counter stating that the accident took place because of the rash and negligent driving on the part of the petitioner. So he is not entitled for any compensation. The fourth respondent United India Insurance Company filed a counter stating that only against the respondents 1 to 3 the claim is made and the fourth respondent is unnecessary party. The fifth respondent in the main petition namely Alinath filed a counter
3/8
C.M.A.(MD).No.919 of 2023
stating that the occurrence took place because of rash and negligent driving on the part of the ambassador car driver. So only the respondents
1 to 3 are responsible to pay the compensation.
4.Regarding the first point of negligence , the Tribunal recorded a finding that the occurrence took place because of the negligence on the part of the claimant himself. So he is not entitled for any compensation. By finding so, it dismissed the claim application. Against which, this appeal is preferred.
5.The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that even though the case was registered against him, the nature of the occurrence may be taken into account. According to him, another two wheeler came behind him and that two wheeler hit him. Because of the impact he hit the ambassador car, which was coming in the opposite direction. Since he was admitted in the hospital, he was unable to give the complaint immediately. This inability was taken advantage and case was registered against him.
4/8
C.M.A.(MD).No.919 of 2023
6.Per contra, the learned counsel for the third respondent would submit that in respect of the very same accident, claim application was filed by the Paramakrishnan @ Radhakrishnan's legal heirs in M.C.O.P.No.36 of 2017 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagercoil, namely Principal Sub Judge, Nagercoil, wherein, this claimant/appellant was arrayed as first respondent. The award was passed in that matter on 25.09.2023, which subsequent to the order of dismissal in this matter. The appellant also appeared before the Tribunal through his Advocate and contested the matter. He contended before the Court that the Ambassador car bearing registration No.TN 74 L 1703 was driven by 6th respondent namely Ramar in rash and negligent manner and hit against the deceased and as well as his vehicle. He sustained injuries. The manner of accident was taken into account by the Tribunal and recorded the finding that the occurrence took place because of the rash and negligent driving on the part of this appellant. Against which, it appears that no appeal was preferred either by the Insurance Company or by this appellant himself. That order is now become final. Similarly in this matter also the very same conclusion was reached. Even though M.C.O.P.No.36 of 2017 on the file of the Principal Sub Judge, Nagercoil
5/8
C.M.A.(MD).No.919 of 2023
was rendered subsequent to the order passed in the present MCOP, the conclusions are one and the same.
7.So in view of the above said situation, the counsel for the third respondent submits that no contrary finding can be recorded, unless the finding in M.C.O.P.No.36 of 2017 on the file of the Principal Sub Judge, Nagercoil, is set aside. That argument appears to be reasonable and acceptable also. There cannot be two contradictory findings in respect of the very same accident, even though these two matters were heard by two separate Tribunals. But, as noted above regarding the negligence aspect in both the matters, it was held that only the appellant was at fault.
8.Further, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that he also sustained injuries, underwent surgery and that must be taken into account by this Court. But regarding the negligence aspect, I find that no contrary finding can recorded by this Court, against the order passed in M.C.O.P.No.36 of 2017 on the file of the Principal Sub Judge, Nagercoil.
So to know whether any personal accident coverage is available to the claimant, the insurance certificate was called for and also produced by
6/8
C.M.A.(MD).No.919 of 2023
the appellant, wherein, we can see that basic third party premium alone was paid. Therefore, there is no personal accident coverage for the rider. So the appellant is not entitled for any compensation even in the category
of personal accident coverage. The appeal fails.
No costs.
28.08.2024 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No TM
To
7/8
C.M.A.(MD).No.919 of 2023
G.ILANGOVAN ,J.
TM
C.M.A.(MD).No.919 of 2023
28.08.2024
8/8
2 issues framed by the court
Whether compensation can be awarded when allegations of rash and negligent driving are vehemently held against the car
Whether appeal can be allowed to set aside the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal order dismissing the claim
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Krishna Suresh
Ramar
Thayabaran
New India Assurance Co.Ltd.
United India Insurance Co.Ltd.
Alinath
G.ILANGOVAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
