Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 1042
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE. C.S. KARNAN
T. Ramesh
Versus
K. Thangavel Udayar & Another
C.M.A. No. 777 of 2005
Decided On :17-03-2010
For the Appellant :V.K. Sellathurai, Advocate.
The main legal point established is the reliance on evidence, including the criminal trial judgment, to determine liability and award compensation in motor accident claims.
Headnote:
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Compensation Claim - Motor Vehicles Act, Sections 140 and 166 - [140, 166] - The court analyzed the evidence and found that the accident was caused by the first respondent's vehicle, leading to the petitioner's injuries. The court also considered the contradictory claims made by the petitioner regarding his age and the delay in filing the complaint. The court ultimately set aside the Tribunal's decision and awarded compensation to the petitioner based on the criminal trial judgment and the evidence presented.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sustained injuries when a tractor trailer driven by the first respondent ran over his leg. The petitioner claimed compensation under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accident was caused by the first respondent's vehicle and that the petitioner's claims were credible, setting aside the Tribunal's decision and awarding compensation to the petitioner.
Issues: The issues included determining the cause of the accident, the quantum of compensation, and the petitioner's entitlement to relief.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the evidence presented, including the criminal trial judgment, to establish the cause of the accident and the petitioner's entitlement to compensation.
Final Decision: The court set aside the Tribunal's decision and awarded compensation to the petitioner.
1. The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/petitioner against the Judgment and Decree, dated 05.08.2004, made in M.C.O.P.No.260 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Ariyalur, dismissing the claim of the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.
2. Aggrieved by the said Judgment and Decree, the appellant/petitioner has filed the above appeal praying to set aside the said Judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal and restricting his claim compensation to Rs.1,00,000/-.
3. The short facts of the case are as follows:
On 01.02.2000, at about 18.00 hours, the petitioner was travelling in the Tractor bearing registration No.TN32 Z1729 and Trailer bearing registration No.TN45 Y9820, accompanying a sugarcane load. The said tractor trailer was driven by its driver Chandrasami from Neikuppai to Eraiyur Sugar Factory for supply of the sugarcane and was stopped in front of Jaya Hotels there were a large number of tractor trailers parked in front of the hotel, waiting to unload sugarcane loaded on their trailers. Hence, the petitioner, in order to get some rest, was resting under the first respondents stationery tractor-trailer. But, the driver of the first respondents tractor without noticing him suddenly started the tractor trailer at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and in the process, the tractor ran over the right leg of the petitioner causing grievious injury in three of his toes. The petitioner was given first aid at Government Hospital, Perambalur and subsequently taken for treatment at Government Hospital, Trichy for one week as an inpatient. Subsequent to this, the petitioner has been receiving treatment at a private hospital. The petitioner is aged about 19 years and was an agriculturist earning a sum of Rs.300/-per day. The petitioner has claimed that he has sustained permanent disability in the accident and has suffered a loss of income due to this. As the first respondents vehicle was insured with the second respondent at the time of accident, the petitioner has claimed a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- from both the respondents under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
4. Regarding the said accident, a criminal case has been registered at the Mangalamedu Police Station in Crime No.62/2000 as against the driver of the said tractor trailer involved in the accident, under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of I.P.C.
5. The second respondent, in his counter, has resisted the claim denying the manner of accident as alleged in the claim. It has been submitted that the petitioner sustained injuries in the accident caused while he was travelling in a bullock-cart, loaded with sugarcane and that this is established by the accident report given by the Doctor of the Government Hospital, Trichy. The second respondent has submitted that the petitioner and the first respondent had colluded together and have tried to hide this fact, in order to claim excessive compensation from him. It has also been pointed out that for the accident, which had occurred on 02.02.2000, the FIR has been registered as against the driver of the tractor-trailer only on 16.02.2000 and that the petitioner has not explained the reason for the delay in filing the complaint. Hence, the second respondent has submitted that the first respondents vehicle had not been involved in the said accident and hence he is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. The second respondent has also not admitted the averments in the claim regarding the age, income and occupation of the petitioner as well as the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, medical expenses and permanent disability sustained by the petitioner. It has been submitted that the claim is excessive and has to be dismissed with costs.
6. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed four issues for the consideration namely:
(i) Was the accident caused due to the high speed, rash and negligent manner of the drivin
