Dismissed¶40

Senthil v. K.Udhayakumar

Madras HC27 Feb 2025CMA/494/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Senthil v. K.Udhayakumar & The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., CMA.No.494 of 2023, Madras High Court, 27.02.2025 (S.Sounthar, J.). Keywords: tort-feasor claimant; Section 166 Motor Vehicle Act maintainability; claimant as driver vs passenger; FIR Ex.P1 naming claimant as driver in body; Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report Ex.P4 Column No.6; joint trial with M.C.O.P.Nos.460 and 528 of 2016; alleged driver Vijayakumar; tourist van TN-36-AT-1656 capsized 26.05.2016; insurance company defence; appeal against dismissal of MCOP claim; CMA dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

None; the Tribunal's dismissal of the appellant's claim petition was upheld and the appeal was dismissed with no costs. ¶40

Senthil Vs K.Udhayakumar — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the Tribunal's dismissal of the appellant's claim petition was upheld and the appeal was dismissed with no costs.

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant/claimant (Senthil) was the driver of the tourist van TN-36-AT-1656 and hence the tort-feasor at the time of the accident on 26.05.2016, as contended by the Insurance Company and found by the Tribunal, or only a passenger as he claimed. +2 more

¶35

Court's answer

The conclusion reached by the Tribunal that at the time of the accident the capsized vehicle was driven by the appellant is based on proper appreciation of evidence: although claimants in the other original petitions stated in their evidence, in support of the appellant, that the van was driven by one Vijayakumar, the documentary evidence available on record is otherwise - the FIR (Ex.P1), though not registered against the appellant, mentioned him as driver in its body, and the Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report (Ex.P4) mentioned the appellant's name in Column No.6 relating to the name and address of the driver.

¶35

Ratio / Principle

Once the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the vehicle was driven by the appellant in a rash and negligent manner and that he himself is a tort-feasor, the claim petition filed by the appellant under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act is not maintainable.

¶39

Key takeaways

This Court finds no reason to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal; consequently, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed, with no costs.ratio¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (S.Sounthar, J.), CMA.No.494 of 2023, decided 27.02.2025 - Tort-feasor claimant cannot maintain claim under Section 166 MV Act. The Court upheld the judgment and decree dated 25.09.2018 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhavani, dismissing the claim petition of Senthil, who sought Rs.10,00,000/- for simple and grievous injuries sustained on 26.05.2016 when a tourist van (TN-36-AT-1656) belonging to K.Udhayakumar and insured with The New India Assurance Company Limited capsized. Agreeing with the Tribunal, the Court found that the claimant himself was driving the van at the time of the accident: the FIR (Ex.P1), though not registered against him, named him as driver in its body, and the Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report (Ex.P4) named him in Column No.6 (name and address of driver); this documentary evidence prevailed over the oral testimony of claimants in the jointly tried M.C.O.P.Nos.460 and 528 of 2016 attributing the driving to one Vijayakumar. Held that once the claimant is found to have driven the vehicle rashly and negligently and to be the tort-feasor, his claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act is not maintainable. Appeal dismissed; no costs.

¶1

CMA.No.494 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated :27.02.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

¶6

CMA No.494 of 2023

Senthil

... Appellant

Vs.

1.K.Udhayakumar (Notice to R1 may be dispensed with for the time being and separate petition has been filed for the same)

¶11

2.The New India Assurance Company Limited, Rep. By its Manager, Amman Complex, 1^st Floor, EVN Road, Erode.

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988, pleased to set aside the judgment and decree dated 25.09.2018 passed in MCOP.No.482 of 2016 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum IV Additional District Judge, Erode District, Bhavani.

¶14

For appellant : Mr.C.Kulanthaivel For Respondents : Mr.R.Sivakumar for R2

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

CMA.No.494 of 2023

¶18

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed challenging the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, dismissing the claim petition on the ground that the appellant himself is the tort-feasor.

¶19

The appellant herein filed a claim petition in MCOP.No.482 of 2016, seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. It was his case that on 26.05.2016, he was travelling as a passenger in a tourist van bearing registration No.TN-36-AT-1656 belonging to the first respondent insured with the second respondent. It was claimed by the appellant that the van was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner without following traffic rules, as a result of which, the vehicle got capsized. The appellant/claimant sustained simple and grievous injuries all over the body. Therefore, the above said claim petition was filed seeking compensation.

¶20

The first respondent/owner of the vehicle remained

¶21

Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

CMA.No.494 of 2023

¶23

ex-parte and the claim was resisted by the second respondent/Insurance company by denying the manner of accident as described in the claim petition. It was the specific case of the Insurance Company before the Tribunal that the claimant himself was driver of the van belonging to the first respondent at the time of accident, he being a tort-feasor is not entitled to claim any compensation.

¶24

Before the Tribunal, the main original petition filed by

¶25

the claimant herein was enquired along with two motor claims Original Petitions namely M.C.O.P.Nos.460 and 528 of 2016. It was claimed by the 2^nd respondent that the capsized van was driven by the appellant/claimant. The claimant in MCOP.No.460 of 2016 was examined as PW.1, the appellant/claimant in instant MCOP.No.482 of 2016 was examined as PW.2. The claimant in other MCOP.No.528 of 2016 was examined as PW.3, two other witnesses on behalf of the claimants were examined as PW4 and PW5. On behalf of the respondents, Superintendent of RTO Office was examined as RW.1, the second respondent/Insurance Company was examined as RW.2. On behalf of the claimant twenty five documents were marked Exs.P1 to

¶26

Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

CMA.No.494 of 2023

¶28

P25. On behalf of the respondents, six documents were marked as Exs.R1 to R6, apart from these documents five other documents were marked as Ex.X1 to Ex.X4A. The disability certificate issued by the medical board were marked as Ex.C1 and C2. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the appellant/claimant was driving the capsized vehicle at the time of accident and therefore, the claimant is not entitled to maintain the claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act and consequently dismissed the claim petition. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has come before this Court by way of this appeal.

¶29

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that at the time of accident the claimant was only a passenger in tourist van and the van was driven by one Vijaya Kumar. The Tribunal without taking into consideration the evidence on record properly, came to the conclusion, the appellant/claimant was tort-feasor and dismissed the claim petition.

¶30

The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/Insurance Company by taking this Court to the various findings of the Tribunal submitted that the findings of the Tribunal were

¶31

Page 4 of 8

¶32

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

¶33

CMA.No.494 of 2023

¶34

based on proper application of evidence available on record, hence the same need not be interfered with.

¶35

The PW.1 was claimant in other claim petition, she deposed that she was travelling in a capsized van and the van was driven by one Vijayakumar herein. EX.P1 is the FIR and perusal of the same would suggest that the same has not been registered against the appellant. However in body of FIR, appellant name was mentioned as driver of vehicle. Ex.P4 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report. A perusal of the same would suggest that in Column No.6, related to name and addresses of driver, the appellant's name was mentioned. Taking into consideration, documentary evidence namely the FIR as Ex.P1; Ex.P4-Motor Vehicle Inspector's report, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that at the time of accident, the vehicle was driven by appellant herein. Though claimants in other original petition, in order to support the case of the appellant herein, in their evidence had stated that vehicle was driven by one Vijayakumar, the documentary evidence available on record is otherwise. Therefore, the conclusion reached by the Tribunal that at the time of accident, the capsized vehicle was

¶36

Page 5 of 8

¶37

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

¶38

CMA.No.494 of 2023

¶39

driven by the appellant is based on proper appreciation of evidence. Once the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the vehicle was driven by the appellant herein in a rash and negligent manner and he himself is a tort-feasor, the claim petition filed by the appellant under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act is not at all maintainable.

¶40

Accordingly, I do not find any reason to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal and consequently, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs.

¶41

27.02.2025

¶42

Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No ub

¶43

To 1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, IV Additional District Judge, Erode District, Bhavani.

¶44

Page 6 of 8

¶45

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

¶46

CMA.No.494 of 2023