Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 2194
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. KIRUBAKARAN, S. BASKARAN, JJ.
K. Bannarisamy & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Anbalagan S/o Vadivel & Ors. - Respondents
C.M.A.No.626 of 2018
Decided On : 11-08-2018
For the Appellants : Mr. Ma. P. Thangavel.
For the Respondents: Mr. S. Manohar.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the attribution of negligence to both parties in a motor vehicle accident, based on the location and traffic conditions at the time of the accident.
Headnote:
Negligence - Motor Vehicle Accident - Rs.25,000/- - Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 - Section 168 - Section 171 - Section 173
Fact of the Case:
The appeal concerns a claim petition for the death of a student in a motor vehicle accident. The claimants contested the finding of negligence by the Tribunal, arguing that the First Information Report was unreliable and that the accident was caused by the lorry driver's negligence. The Insurance Company supported the Tribunal's finding, citing evidence from the First Information Report and a rough sketch.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that negligence could be attributed to both the rider of the two-wheeler and the lorry driver due to the location and traffic conditions at the time of the accident. The Court also disregarded the First Information Report and the rough sketch, concluding that the accident occurred due to the negligence of both parties.
Issues: The issues involved the reliability of the First Information Report, the attribution of negligence, and the determination of compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that negligence could be attributed to both parties based on the location and traffic conditions at the time of the accident. The Court also disregarded the First Information Report and the rough sketch as unreliable evidence.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeal in part, determining the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased at 50% and awarding compensation of Rs.12,29,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.
N. KIRUBAKARAN, J.
1. The appeal has been preferred by the claimants aggrieved over the grant of Rs.25,000/- towards no fault liability by the Tribunal in the claim petition filed by them for the death of their son B. Vigneswaran, a 23 year old third year B.E., student studying at Vel's University, Chennai in the accident occurred on 8.6.2012.
2. Heard Mr. Ma. P. Thangavel, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. S. Manohar, learned counsel for the third respondent Insurance Company.
3. The case of the appellants/claimants was that when the victim was riding the two-wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-36-Z-7814 on the Sathyamangalam to Mysore Road on 8.6.2012 at about 22.15 hours, at that time, the lorry belonging to the second respondent bearing Registration No.TN-52-1751 driven by the first respondent and insured with the third respondent, coming from Gobi to Mysore road, in a rash and negligent manner, hit the victim and caused the accident. The learned counsel for the claimants would submit that even though the First Information Report, Ex.P-1 was stated to be given by P.W.2, P.W.2 has categorically stated in his evidence that the police obtained his signature in blank papers and he did not know what were the contents. When that is the position, the Tribunal should not have relied upon the First Information Report, Ex.P-1 and the closure report, Ex.P-7. He would also point out that taking into consideration the filing of First Information Report against the victim, the parents viz., the appellants already gave a complaint to the higher police authorities through Ex.P-9 and that was not considered by the Tribunal properly. Therefore, he seeks to set aside the finding regarding negligence.
4. On the other hand, Mr. S. Manohar, learned counsel for the third respondent Insurance Company would submit that the finding of the Tribunal regarding negligence is based on evidence. When the First Information Report, Ex.P-1 was given by P.W.2, the version stated in the First Information Report is further confirmed by R.W.1, the driver of the lorry. He would also rely upon the rough sketch, Ex.P-6 to show that the two-wheeler came in the wrong direction and hit against the right rear side of the lorry. Hence, he would support the award of the Tribunal.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records very carefully.
6. It is admitted by both parties that the two-wheeler was coming from Sathyamangalam road to Mysore road and the lorry was coming from Gobi to Mysore road and it was a junction. Though both the parties took a contra stand regarding the manner of accident, P.W.2, who was travelling as a pillion-rider, has categorically stated in his evidence that the driver of the lorry was responsible for the accident. Even R.W.1, the driver of the lorry admitted in his evidence that there was a traffic in that area and both the lorry as well as the two-wheeler were moving very slow. Moreover, the accident occurred in the junction of three roads. Though it is claimed by the Insurance Company that the rider/driver of the respective vehicle was responsible for the accident, considering the location of the accident spot and the slow moving of the vehicles due to traffic jam at the time of accident, negligence could be attributed on the part of both the rider of the two-wheeler viz., the deceased as well as the driver of the lorry, as this Court cannot expect P.W.2, the pillion-rider as well as R.W.1, the driver of the lorry to give evidence against themselves, since they are all interested witnesses.
7. As already observed, considering the location of the accident spot and also the slow movement of the vehicles, this Court comes to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the rider of the two-wheeler as well as the driver of the lorry. Therefore, liability is fastened equally on both the rider of the two-wheeler and the driver of the lorry.
8. Further, this Court cannot take the
