Dismissed¶88

Kochadai v. Rajesh

Madras HC25 Mar 2025CMA(MD)/1567/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), C.M.A.(MD)No.1567 of 2024, L. Victoria Gowri J., 25.03.2025 - appeal by legal heirs of drunk rider dismissed; Section 163-A MV Act structured-formula compensation denied to tortfeasor's dependants; drunken driving held proved from FIR Crime No.62 of 2021, final report and complainant's account without viscera report; follows C.Janaki v. Kanniappan (C.M.A. No.1185 of 2024); Tribunal dismissal in M.C.O.P.No.1541 of 2022 (dt. 10.09.2024) upheld; victim held to be other rider Vishnudevan; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Though the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a welfare legislation, a tortfeasor cannot be allowed to take advantage of it for his own wrongdoing; no one can take advantage or benefit from a wrong committed by himself, so a tortfeasor or his dependants cannot claim compensation under Section 163-A.

Kochadai Vs Rajesh — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶88

Issue for consideration

Whether the legal heirs/dependants of a rider found to be the tortfeasor (riding under the influence of alcohol, rashly and negligently) can claim compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 notwithstanding the tortfeasor status of the deceased. +1 more

¶44

Court's answer

¶83

Ratio / Principle

In the instant case the victim is none other than Vishnudevan, who also died in the same accident, and not the deceased Muthuselvam who rode under the influence of alcohol; accordingly the Court is not inclined to interfere with the judgment of the Tribunal.

¶87

Key takeaways

No additional proof for drunken driving is necessary in the instant case: the investigation and final report reveal the deceased consumed alcohol at his residence along with Gunasekaran before riding, and the fact that he rode rashly and negligently is duly made out by the complaint of the de-facto complainant himself.ratio¶66

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

C.M.A.(MD)No.1567 of 2024 (Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, L. Victoria Gowri J., 25.03.2025): Legal heirs (Kochadai and Lakshmi) of Muthuselvam, killed in a head-on collision between two two-wheelers on 23.05.2021 near Ayanreddiyapatti Junction, appealed against the Tribunal's dismissal (10.09.2024) of their claim M.C.O.P.No.1541 of 2022 under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Tribunal having found the deceased a tortfeasor. Held: the investigation and final report showed the deceased had consumed alcohol before riding, and the de-facto complainant's complaint established rash and negligent riding, so no additional proof (viscera report) of drunken driving was necessary; following C.Janaki v. Kanniappan (C.M.A. No.1185 of 2024), a tortfeasor or his dependants cannot take advantage of the welfare legislation or the Section 163-A structured formula (nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria); the victim in this accident was the other rider, Vishnudevan. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal dismissed; no costs.