Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 3242
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
DHARUMAN - Appellant
Versus
K. SELVAM - Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 64 of 2010
Decided on : 26-10-2018
Advocate Appeared:
P. Mani, Adv., D. Baskaran, Adv.
The main legal point established is the importance of evidence in determining liability in motor accident cases, specifically in relation to the liability of insurance companies.
Headnote:
Motor Accident - Liability of Insurance Company - M.C.O.P.No. 413 of 2007 - The court discussed the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and specifically referred to sections related to liability of the insurance company in case of accidents. The court emphasized the importance of evidence in determining the liability of the insurance company and concluded that the appellant was the rider of the motorcycle and not a pillion rider, thus exonerating the liability of the insurance company under the impugned Award.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant sustained injuries in a motor accident and filed a claim against the owner and insurer of the motorcycle. The Tribunal dismissed the claim against the insurer but awarded compensation against the owner. The appellant appealed the decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant was the rider of the motorcycle and not a pillion rider, based on the evidence presented, and therefore upheld the dismissal of the claim against the insurer.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant was the rider or pillion rider of the motorcycle at the time of the accident, determining the liability of the insurance company.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the evidence, including the wound certificate and FIR, to establish that the appellant was the rider of the motorcycle. It emphasized the importance of evidence in determining liability in motor accident cases.
Final Decision: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed, and the first respondent was directed to deposit the awarded amount with interest to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
1. The instant appeal has been filed by the claimant challenging the dismissal of his claim under the impugned Award dated 31.08.2009, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate Court), Krishnagiri in M.C.O.P.No.413 of 2007.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the instant appeal are as follows:
(i)The Appellant sustained injuries on 02.12.2006 as a result of an accident while he was travelling in a Bajaj CD 100 Motor cycle bearing Registration No.TN 24-A 7295 owned by the first respondent and insured with the second respondent. According to the learned Counsel for the Appellant, he was a pillion rider in the Bajaj CD 100 Motor cycle bearing Registration No.TN 24-A 7295 at the time of the accident. But, according to the second respondent Insurance Company, the Appellant was the rider of the Bajaj CD 100 Motor cycle and therefore, the second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the Appellant since it is not a third party claim.
(ii)The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by its Award dated 31.08.2009 in M.C.O.P.No. 413 of 2007, dismissed the claim of the Appellant as against the second respondent, but awarded a compensation of Rs. 79,500/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim till the date of realisation as against the first respondent, who is the owner of the vehicle.
3. Aggrieved by the findings of the Tribunal, exonerated liability of the second respondent, instant appeal has been filed by the claimant.
4. Heard, Mr.P.Mani, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mr.D.Bhaskaran, learned Counsel for the second respondent. The first respondent has remained ex parte both before the Tribunal as well as before this Court.
5. According to the learned Counsel for the Appellant, the Tribunal under the impugned Award has given an erroneous finding as if the Appellant was the rider of the Motor cycle and not a pillion rider at the time of the accident, according to him, the FIR clearly indicates that the Appellant was only a pillion rider and not the rider of the Bajaj CD 100 Motor cycle. According to him, the Bajaj CD 100 Motor cycle was driven by one Govindan, who was having a valid driving license at the time of the accident, which was marked as Ex.P-6. Therefore, according to him, being a third party claim, the Tribunal ought to have fastened the liability of the second respondent Insurance Company also.
6. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the second respondent Insurance Company would submit that the Tribunal has given a clear finding based on Ex.P-2 (wound certificate) furnished by the Appellant before the Tribunal that the Appellant was the rider of the Motor cycle and was not travelling as a pillion rider at the time of the accident. Further, he would submit that the alleged driver of the Motor cycle Govindan was also not examined by the Appellant before the Tribunal or was he made a party to the claim petition. He drew the attention of this Court to the wound certificate Ex.P-2 wherein, he stated that the Appellant was the rider of the Motor cycle at the time of the accident.
7. The learned Counsel for the second respondent also drew the attention of this Court to the findings of the Tribunal which has considered the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by both the parties and come to the conclusion that the Appellant was in fact the rider of the Motor cycle and was not a pillion rider at the time of the accident. Therefore, according to him, the Tribunal has rightly exonerated the liability of the second respondent under the impugned Award.
8. This Court, after having considering the materials available on record and after examining the impugned Award and after hearing the submissions of the respective Counsels observes the following:
(a)The Wound Certificate Ex.P-2 was filed only by the Appellant before the Tribunal. As seen from the Wound Certificate Ex.P.2, the Appellant was the rider of the Motor cycle at the ti
