Back
2011 Supreme(Mad) 4873
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS, MADURAI BENCH
T. Mathivanan, J.
Maya Azhagar and Another – Appellants
Versus
Thangiah and Another – Respondents
C.M.A. (MD) No. 1994 of 2002
Decided On : 05-04-2011
For the Appellant : R. Manimaran for Mr. S. Meenakshisundaram
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act in determining compensation for motor accident claims.
Headnote:
Motor Accident - Compensation Claim - Section 163-A of the Act - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act - The court discussed the involvement of the vehicle bearing registration No. TN 69-B 5437, TVS Suzuki Max 100 R motor cycle, and the application of Section 163-A of the Act in determining the compensation. The court also referred to the Evidence Act and various legal principles related to the admissibility and use of first information reports in accident claim cases.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased boy was hit by a motor cycle and sustained fatal injuries. The claimants filed a compensation claim, which was initially dismissed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The appellants appealed against this decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence of the eyewitness and the first information report established the involvement of the motor cycle in the accident. The court also determined the compensation amount based on the provisions of Section 163-A of the Act.
Issues: The key issue was the identification of the vehicle involved in the accident and the admissibility of the first information report as evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not be applied in accident claim cases and that the first information report is not a substantive piece of evidence. The court also emphasized the use of the first information report for corroboration or contradiction in accident claim cases.
Final Decision: The civil miscellaneous appeal was allowed, and the claimants were awarded a sum of Rs. 1,90,900 as compensation.
Mathivanan, J.
This civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order of dismissal dated 11.4.2002 and made in M.C.O.P. No. 17 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate), Tuticorin. The facts which are absolutely necessary for the disposal of the appeal may be summarised as under:
That on 6.2.1999, at about 11 a.m., the motor cycle bearing registration No. TN 69-B 5437 had hit against the deceased boy Vijayamuthu, aged about 6 years, when he was standing near Ayyar Battery Company at Harbour Extension Road Camp-I, Tuticorin. As a result of this, he had sustained fracture over his head and multiple injuries all over his body. Soon after the occurrence, he was removed to the Government Medical College & Hospital at Tuticorin wherein he was treated as inpatient from 6.2.1999 to 9.2.1999. Thereafter, he had succumbed to injuries while he was under treatment. Hence, the appellants being the parents of the deceased had filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P. No. 71 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate), Tuticorin, claiming a sum of Rs. 5,00,000.
2. Respondent No. 1 being the owner of the motor cycle and the respondent No. 2 being the insurer had resisted the claim petition.
3. In order to establish their respective cases, both the appellants and the respondents went for trial. Two witnesses which includes the appellant No. 1/claimant No. 1 were examined and during the course of their examination, Exhs. P1 to P6 were marked. On the other hand, the respondent No. 1 was examined as RW 1 and during the course of his examination Exhs. R1 to R3 were marked.
4. On evaluating the evidence both oral and documentary, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal had dismissed the claim of the claimants on the ground that they are not entitled to get compensation from the respondents.
5. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the claimants have approached this court by way of this appeal.
6. Heard both sides.
7. The involvement of the vehicle bearing registration No. TN 69-B 5437, TVS Suzuki Max 100 R motor cycle has been questioned in this appeal. Only on this ground, the claim petition filed by the appellants had been dismissed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The first information report plays a pivotal role in this case. The first information report under Exh. P1 seems to have been lodged by the mother of the deceased boy. It appears that the accident has taken place on 6.2.1999, when the deceased boy was standing on the northern side of Ayyar Battery Company in order to cross the road. It also reveals that the statement of the mother of the deceased boy was recorded by a Head Constable, H.C. No. 432, Sorimuthu, while she was attending her son in the hospital. It is written by the Head Constable as if the boy was hit by a lorry. But, in the averments of the first information report, it is stated that a blue colour scooter came fast and dashed against her son and thereafter, proceeded further and fled away from the scene of occurrence.
8. PW 2 has given a valuable and important piece of evidence and he alone has given a vivid account about the manner in which the accident has taken place, because he was the eyewitness. Soon after the occurrence, he along with the mother of the boy had removed him to the hospital. Exh. R2 is the certified copy of the judgment dated 24.10.2001, and made in C.C. No. 54 of 2000, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Tuticorin, acquitting the respondent No. 1, who is the owner-cum-rider of the motor cycle bearing registration No. TN 69-B 5437. The learned Judicial Magistrate No. II had recorded the evidence of PW 2 in the above said case.
9. In the above said case, PW 2 herein Subburaj was examined as PW 3. He had stated that on 6.2.1999, at about 11 a.m. at Harbour Main Road, when the deceased boy was standing near the Ayyar Battery Company, t
