Back
2008 Supreme(Mad) 1718
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. MURGESEN
Nallamani Transport & Another
Versus
Brij Mohan Dass Maheswari & Others
C.M.A.(NPD) Nos.847 and 995 of 2001
Decided On :Decided on : 12-06-2008
For the Petitioners:D. Ramachandran, M. Rosi Naidu, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R3, C. Jawahar Ravindran, R1, R2, M. Ramkumar, R7, M.C. Swamy, R8, C. Jawahar Ravindran, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of liability in a motor vehicle accident case, based on the evidence presented and the application of relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation - 170, 149(2), 279, 337, 304(A) I.P.C. - The court found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver alone. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal was modified based on the evidence presented. The joint appeals filed by the Insurance Company and the owner were found to be not maintainable.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a fatal accident between a van and a bus, resulting in the death of a passenger and injuries to another. The Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimants, which was challenged in the present appeals.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accident was caused solely by the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal was modified based on the evidence presented. The joint appeals filed by the Insurance Company and the owner were found to be not maintainable.
Issues: The issues included the maintainability of the appeals, the apportionment of liability between the drivers, and the determination of just compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the evidence presented, including the FIR, witness testimony, and previous court decisions to determine the cause of the accident and the apportionment of liability. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal was modified based on the evidence.
Final Decision: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeals were disposed of accordingly, with no costs awarded.
These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are directed against the award and decree dated 01.04.1999 made in MCOP Nos.1360 of 1996 and 1359 of 1996 on the file of the I Additional District Judge-cum-District and Sessions Judge, Madurai.
2. The appellants in both these appeals are the respondents before the Tribunal. The first respondent in both these appeals is the claimant before the Tribunal.
3. On the fateful day, i.e. on 04.08.1993, the deceased Bhagavathi Devi along with her husband Brij Mohan Dass Maheswari and others were travelling in the van bearing Registration No.TN-59-C-1008 from Madurai to Kodaikanal. The van belongs to one Venugopal who is the second respondent in CMA No.847 of 2001 and seventh respondent in CMA 995 of 2001. The van was insured with the Insurance Company, who is the third respondent in CMA No.847 of 2001 and eighth respondent in CMA 995 of 2001. When the above van bearing Registration NO.TN-59-C-1008 was proceeding in the Madurai-Dindigul Road near Visalakshi Mill Quarters, the bus bearing Registration No.TN-59-9279 came from west to east and dash against the said van. As a result of the accident, the first respondent in both these appeals, Brij Mohan Dass Maheswari sustained injuries and his wife Bhagavathi Devi died. The bus was insured with the second appellant / Insurance Company. The injured Brij Mohan Dass Maheswari along with other legal heirs of the deceased, filed MCOP Nos.1359 and 1360 of 1996 before the I Additional District Judge-cum-District and Sessions Judge, Madurai claiming compensation. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.20,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of petition in MCOP No.1360 of 1996 and a compensation of Rs.1,22,000/-with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of petition in MCOP No.1359 of 1996.
4. Both the claim petitions were tried jointly and a common judgment was pronounced by the Tribunal.
5. Challenging the judgment of the Tribunal, the present CMAs are filed. CMA Nos.847 and 995 of 2001 are filed against MCOP Nos.1360 of 1996 and 1359 of 1996, respectively.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that the second appellant was burdened with negligence on the part of the driver of the van and hence it is proper to hold that both the drivers of the vehicles are responsible for the accident. The learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunal ought to have fixed 50% liability on each of the drivers. Further, he also disputed about the quantum of compensation awarded.
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently contended that the joint appeals filed by the appellants are not maintainable. It is also submitted that the Insurance Company has not obtained any permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act and hence their claim falls outside the purview of Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act.
8. On considering the submissions made by the counsel on either side, the following points emerge for consideration:-
1) Whether the appeals are maintainable or not?
2) Whether the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of both the drivers or not?
3) What is the just compensation?
Point No.2:-
(i) It is the definite stand of the appellants that both the driver of the vehicles are responsible for the accident and that it is not proper to blame the driver of the bus alone. To strengthen his stand, the counsel for the appellants relied on the following decisions:-
a) This Court judgment in the case of Marudhu Pandiyar Transport Corporation v. M.Veerammal and another, 1999-3-L.W.811.
b) Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment in the case of R.Balanarasamma v. K.Ramakrishna Reddy, 1999 ACJ 606.
In both the above cases, there was an accident involving two vehicles and the drivers of both the vehicles are found guilty. These decisions are not applicable to the facts of the present cases. It has to be first seen that on the fateful day of the occurrence of the accident, the complaint was given
