The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Balasubramanian

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 04.01.2021 passed in M.C.O.P.No.26 of 2019 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Additional District Court, Fast Track Court, Nagapattinam.

¶17

For Appellant : Mr.M.Krishnamorthy For R1 to R3 : Mr.G.Mahesh Kumar

¶18

Page No.1/9

¶19

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

¶20

C.M.A.No.3305 of 2021

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the Award dated 04.01.2021 made in M.C.O.P.No.26 of 2019 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional District Court, Nagapattinam on the liability issue.

¶23

The parties are indicated herein as per their litigative status and ranking before the Tribunal.

¶24

Claim Petition was filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for the death of one Lakshmi, who died due to the road traffic accident that took place on 20.02.2016.

¶25

The tribunal upon consideration of the evidence and after hearing the arguments advanced by either side, granted compensation of Rs.6,75,632/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a from the date of petition and the amounts granted under various heads are given hereunder:-

¶26

Page No.2/9

¶27

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

¶28

C.M.A.No.3305 of 2021

¶29

“Towards loss of dependency Rs.6,10,632/-; towards loss of

¶30

consortium Rs.30,000/-; towards loss of estate and transportation

¶31

Rs.10,000/- under each head; and towards funeral expenses

¶32

Rs.15,000/-; totally a sum of Rs.6,75,632/- is granted.”

¶33

The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company would strenuously argue that the fourth respondent herein (Owner of the Tractor), who is the resident of the opposite house of the third claimant/defacto complainant, bearing Reg.No.TN-51-AD-0226 was falsely implicated. The registration number of the tractor was not mentioned in the complaint. He would further argue that the said tractor was subjected to inspection ten days after the date of accident. The Tribunal ought to have rejected the claim application, in view of the fact that there is no mention about the registration number of the tractor, which is said to have been involved in the accident.

¶34

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3/claimants would strenuously put forth that P.W.2 and P.W.3 have spoken about the accident and it is established that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor bearing Reg.No.TN-51Page No.3/9

¶35

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

¶36

C.M.A.No.3305 of 2021 AD-0226 belonging to the first respondent and therefore, the liability was fastened upon the insurer of the said tractor.

¶37

At trial, to substantiate the claim details on the claimant’s side, three witnesses have been examined. The first claimant has examined himself as P.W.1 and one Pazhanivel and Vetriselvam have been examined as P.W.2 and P.W.3 as the eyewitnesses to the occurrence. P.W.1 would state that on 20.02.2016, at about 6.00 p.m., his mother, along with three claimants, namely, Balasubramanian, Tamizharasi and Vetriselvam, were attending the road work along VedharanyamThalaignayiru road at Pazhiyatragarai and at that point of time, a Tractor bearing Reg.No.TN-51-AD-0226 came from east to west at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner hit upon his mother, who was doing road work. She was thrown out and sustained injury over her head and all over her body and further lost her consciousness.

¶38

During the cross-examination of P.W.1, he would state that he came to know that his mother met with an accident while she was doing the road work along with her brother. It is relevant to note that the contract for laying road was taken up by the first respondent.

¶39

Page No.4/9

¶40

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

¶41

C.M.A.No.3305 of 2021 9. P.W.2/Pazhanivel is the eyewitness to the occurrence. P.W.2 also

¶42

would state about the accident in line with the evidence of P.W.1. The following portion of the evidence of P.W.2 is relevant and the same is extracted hereunder:

¶43

"... tpgj;jpd;NghJ nyl;Rkpapd; kPJ Nkhjpajhf

¶44

nrhy;yg;gLk; buhf;lu; NuhL fhz;buhf;l;lu; 1k; vjpu;kDjhuuhd md;gofDf;F nrhe;jkhdJ vd;gJ rupjhd;..."

¶45

" ... ehd;, nyl;Rkp kw;Wk; ntw;wpr;nry;tk; MfpNahu; NuhL

¶46

Ntiy nra;Ak;NghJjhd; 1k; vjpu;kDjhuupd; buhf;lu; Nkhjp tpgj;J Vw;gl;lJ vd;why; rupjhd; ..."

¶47

The third respondent/son of the deceased Lakshmi has been examined as P.W.3. He has spoken about the manner in which the accident occurred during his chief-examination. No details advantageous to the Insurance Company were elicited through cross-examination of P.W.1 to P.W.3. It is pellucid from the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 that the tractor which hit upon Lakshmi belongs to the first respondent. Because the registration number of the vehicle is not given in the complaint, that alone will not absolve the insurance company from liability to pay compensation.

¶48

From the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3, it is clearly established

¶49

Page No.5/9

¶50

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

¶51

C.M.A.No.3305 of 2021 that the tractor which belongs to the first respondent was involved in the

¶52

accident. These details are strengthened further by marking Ex.P6/Inspection Report of the tractor bearing Reg.No.TN-51-AD-0226 wherein in column No.12, details regarding damage sustained by the vehicle due to the accident were mentioned as the tractor's top left side, rear side damaged. From the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3, it is made clear that first respondent’s tractor driver caused the accident and the road worker Lakshmi was hit by the said tractor and succumbed to the injuries. This Court is of the considered view that the complainant being a road worker, his illiteracy is misused and complaint was received from him without tractor number. Law is well settled that, FIR is not substantial piece of evidence and it can be used for corroboration and contradiction. Therefore, based on the aforesaid discussions and observations, it is made clear that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor bearing Reg.No.TN-51-AD-0226 and the Tribunal has fastened liability on the insurer of the tractor, namely, the second respondent/Insurance Company cannot be found fault with.

¶53

In the result,

¶54

(i) The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶55

(ii) The compensation awarded by the Tribunal Page No.6/9

¶56

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

¶57

C.M.A.No.3305 of 2021

¶58

Rs.6,75,632/- is confirmed.

¶59

(iii) The appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount of Rs.6,75,632/- (less the amount already deposited, if any) with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realisation to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.26 of 2019 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional District Court, Nagapattinam, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.

¶60

(iv) On such deposit being made, the claimants/respondents 1 to 3 are permitted to withdraw their share as per the apportionment fixed by the Tribunal, with proportionate interest, after adjusting the amount, if any already withdrawn by filing necessary application before the Tribunal.

¶61

18.12.2025

¶62

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No apd

¶63

Page No.7/9

¶64

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

¶65

C.M.A.No.3305 of 2021

¶66

To