2011 Supreme(Mad) 636
High Court Of Madras
A.Selvam J.
United India Ins.Co.Ltd By Its Divisional Manager - Appellant
Versus
Amirthavalli – Respondent
Decided On : Feb 07,2011
G.Muthuvalli, M.B.Gopalan, Mahendran
( 1. ) AN equity which has been interred in fathom down for getting monetary benefits is being disinterred and also winched to the fore by way of filing these legal proceedings.
( 2. ) THE respondents 1 and 2 in CMA.No.2104 of 2000, first respondent in CMA.No.20 of 2001 and first respondent in CRP.No.2723 of 2001 as petitioners have filed MCOP.Nos.293 of 1996, 1394 of 1997 and 1421 of 1997 under sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Second Additional District Court, Madurai praying to pass awards of compensation to the tune of Rs.1,60,000/-, Rs.60,000/- and Rs.50,000/- respectively wherein the present appellant/revision petitioner has been shown as one of the respondents.
It is averred in the petition filed in MCOP.No.293 of 1996 that on 21.05.1994 at about 7.30 am, the deceased Thirumoorthi has travelled in the bus bearing Registration No.TN-59-C-5853 from Madurai to Melur. Near Vellaripatti the driver of the said bus has driven the same in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the bus bearing Registration No.TMA-2355 which has been driven from opposite direction. Due to accident, the said Thirumoorthi has passed away instantaneously. The bus which caused the accident belongs to the second respondent and the same has been insured with the third respondent. The bus which has been driven from opposite direction belongs to the first respondent. Under the said circumstances the present petition has been filed for the relief sought for therein.
( 3. ) IN the petition filed in MCOP.No.1394 of 1997 it is averred that the accident has happened on 21.05.1994 at about 7.30 am. Due to accident, the petitioner and her minor daughter by name Sarala have sustained injuries. The accident has happened only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing Registration No.TN-59-C-5853. Under the said circumstances the present petition has been filed for the relief sought for therein.
( 4. ) IN the petition filed in MCOP.No.1421 of 1997 it is averred that the accident has happened on 21.05.1994 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing Registration No. TN-59-C-5853 and at the time of accident, the petitioner has travelled in the said bus and due to accident she sustained injury. Under the said circumstances the present petition has been filed for getting the relief sought for therein.
On the side of the appellant/revision petitioner/contesting respondent (United India Insurance Corporation Ltd, Chennai/Madurai) a detailed counter has been filed in all the petitions, wherein it has been clearly stated that the accident has not happened due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing Registration No.TN-59-C-5853 and the entire accident has happened due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing Registration No.TMA-2355 which has been driven from opposite direction and therefore, appellant/revision petitioner /contesting respondent (United India Insurance Corporation Ltd, Chennai/Madurai) is not liable to pay compensations as claimed in the petitions and the same are liable to be dismissed.
( 5. ) ON the basis of the rival evidence adduced on either side, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Second Additional District Court, Madurai has awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- in MCOP.No.293 of 1996, Rs.36,000/- in MCOP.No.1394 of 1997 and Rs.7,000/- in MCOP.No.1421 of 1997 and the same should be paid by the owner of the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN- 59-C-5853 and appellant /revision petitioner/contesting respondent (United India Insurance Corporation Ltd, Chennai /Madurai). Against the awards passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Second Additional District Court, Madurai, these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals and Civil Revision Petition have been preferred at the instance of the contesting respondent/United India Insurance Corporation Ltd, Chennai/Madurai.
( 6. ) THE consistent case o