Back
2017 Supreme(Mad) 4197
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
M. Sathyanarayanan, M.V. Muralidharan, JJ.
Smt Anitha – Appellant
Versus
Kennedy – Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2176 of 2012
Decided On : 01-02-2017
Subject
Motor Accident Claims - COMPENSATION AWARD
Act Referred
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT : S.166, S.168
Headnote
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 279, 338 and 304 A - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 166 and 168 - Deceased/claimants are appellants herein and aggrieved by dismissal of petition, vide judgment and decree in MCOP No.26 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional District and Sessions Court/Fast Track Court, had filed this appeal - Deceased [late] was aged about 41 years and according to appellants/claimants, he was working as the Sub-Inspector of Police in and was earning a sum - Appellants would further aver that at about, he was riding a motorcycle on the extreme side of road following traffic rules and regulations and at that time, a Car owned by the 1st respondent was driven in a rash and negligent manner, endangering human lives and without following the traffic rules, proceeded in a wrong way and dashed against the said two-wheeler and as a consequence, rider of the motorcycle was thrown out and sustained grievous injuries and he was immediately rushed to the Hospital for treatment and without responding to the treatment, he died - Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants has drawn the attention of this Court to the impugned judgment as well as testimonies of the witnesses and the original records and would submit that P.W.2 has lodged complaint based on which, Ex.P.1-FIR, came to be registered – Held, Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent had feign attempt by stating that the said judgment is only having a prospective effect and since the claim petition came to be filed in year , principles/ratio laid down in the said judgment cannot be made applicable to the case on hand - This Court is of the view that the said submission deserves summary rejection for the reason that the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in case [cited ], came to be filed and the High Court, rendered the judgment and the Honble Supreme Court of India has decided the case - Tribunal, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, are set aside and the appellants/claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 17,76,947/- [Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Seventy Six thousand Nine Hundred and Forty seven only] with interest from the date of claim petition till deposit and the time for deposit is eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such deposit, the 1st appellant/1st claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs. 9,00,000/- [Rupees Nine lakhs only] with proportionate interest and the appellants 2 to 4/claimants 2 to 4 are entitled for a sum o - Trial Court, taking appropriate applications for withdrawing the amount apportioned to them - Trial Court is directed to follow the judgment reported- Order accordingly.
For the Appellant :Mr. C. Prabakaran, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. J. Chandran, Advocate
M. Sathyanarayanan, J.
The legal representatives of the deceased/claimants are the appellants herein and aggrieved by the dismissal of the petition, vide judgment and decree dated 29.02.2012 in MCOP No.26/2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional District and Sessions Court/Fast Track Court, Vellore, had filed this appeal.
2. The deceased [late] Chakravarthy was aged about 41 years and according to the appellants/claimants, he was working as the Sub-Inspector of Police in Tamil Nadu Police Service and was earning a sum of Rs. 10000/- per month. The appellants would further aver that on 05.09.2004 at about 08.45 a.m., he was riding a motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-74-D-7059 from Katpadi to Tiruvalam on the extreme side of Katpadi to Chennai road following traffic rules and regulations and at that time, a Tata Sumo Car bearing Registration No.TN-23-K-1555, owned by the 1st respondent was driven in a rash and negligent manner, endangering human lives and without following the traffic rules, proceeded in a wrong way and dashed against the said two-wheeler and as a consequence, the rider of the motorcycle was thrown out and sustained grievous injuries and he was immediately rushed to the Christian Medical College Hospital, at Vellore, for treatment and without responding to the treatment, he died on 06.09.2004. The appellants/claimants would further aver that the deceased was on the verge of promotion to the Inspector of Police and was earning not less than Rs. 12,000/- per month and on account of his sudden and tragic demise, the family has been left in lurch and therefore, claimed a lump sum compensation of Rs. 30 lakhs from the respondents.
3. The 1st respondent - owner of the Car remained ex parte and the insurer of the vehicle, viz., the 2nd respondent, had filed their counter, denying the averments made in the claim petition and would state that the Tata Sumo Car, owned by the 1st respondent, was not at all involved in the accident and the rider of the motorcycle/deceased, on his own volition, fallen down while driving the vehicle and sustained grievous injuries and the FIR with regard to the accident given by one Vedagiri was a false and concocted complaint, to enable the claimants to claim compensation and since the rider of the motorcycle himself, has contributed to the accident, prayed for exoneration and dismissal of the claim petition.
4. The wife of the deceased/first claimant/first appellant examined herself as P.W.1 ; the eyewitness to the accident was examined as P.W.2 and the Assistant attached to the District Police Office, Vellore, was examined as P.W.3 and Exs.P.1 to 13 were marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company, the Senior Assistant attached to their office, was examined as R.W.1 and the Inspector who conducted the investigation on behalf of the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company, was examined as R.W.2 and the Casualty Medical Officer, attached to the Christian Medical College Hospital at Vellore, was examined as R.W.3 and Exs.R.1 to 3 were marked.
5. The Tribunal, on a consideration of the claim petition, counter statement, oral and documentary evidences, had held that as per Ex.R1-Xerox copy of the intimation sent by the hospital to the Sub Inspector of Police, Katpadi Police Station, the deceased had fallen from the two-wheeler and sustained injuries and the Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report marked as Ex.P.5 also indicated that the vehicle which is said to have caused the accident, suffered no damage and also taking into consideration, Ex.P.9-the Death Summary, had reached the conclusion that the Tata Sumo Car owned by the 1st respondent, insured with the 2nd respondent, did not involve in the said accident and therefore, citing the said reason, has dismissed the claim petition. Challenging the legality of the judgment and decree passed by the Tribuna
