Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 1240
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Subrgovindhm Building, Cuddalore & Another - Appellant
Versus
A. Ahamed Rafi & Another - Respondents
C.M.A. No. 1626 of 2016
Decided On : 16-12-2020
For the Appellant :Harini, N. Vijayaraghavan, Advocates
For the Respondents:Ramya Rao, A.N. Viswanatha Rao, Advocates
The main legal point established is that under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicle Act, a claimant, even if at fault, may still be entitled to compensation if another party is also involved in the accident.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicle Act - Compensation under Section 163(A) - [MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, Section 163(A)] - The court held that the claimant, though admitted guilt and paid fine, cannot be treated solely as the tortfeasor as another vehicle was involved in the accident. The claimant is entitled to compensation under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicle Act, but the compensation should be within the parameters prescribed under the statute and schedule -II of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.
Fact of the Case:
The claimant was involved in a road accident and sustained multiple fractures. The Insurance Company alleged that the claimant is the tortfeasor and should not be entitled to compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the claimant, despite admitting guilt and paying a fine, cannot be solely held responsible for the accident as another vehicle was involved. The court modified the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the modified amount.
Issues: The main issue was whether the claimant, being the tortfeasor, is entitled to compensation under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicle Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the claimant, despite being at fault, is entitled to compensation under Section 163(A) as another vehicle was involved in the accident, and the negligence cannot be solely fixed on the claimant.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, modified the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the modified amount.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, against the judgment and decree in M.C.O.P.No.2825 of 2013, dated 18.01.2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, I Additional District Court, Cuddalore.)
(The case has been heard through video conference)
1. This Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company alleging that the award passed by the Tribunal is erroneous since the claimant is the tortfeasor.
2. The facts of the case is that on 16.06.2013 at about 8.30 p.m., when the claimant was riding his motorcycle bearing registration No.PY-01-BM-9402 on Cuddalore to Chidambaram main road near Melpoovanikuppam bus stop, the vehicle bearing registration No.TN-31-AW-8820 coming from opposite direction rash and negligently dashed against the claimant and caused grievous injury. The claimant sustained multiple fracture and admitted in the private hospital Cuddalore. Taking advantage of his hospitalisation, FIR has been filed against the claimant as if he has committed the accident. Claim petition under Section 163-A of Motor vehicle Act, was filed seeking Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation.
3. In the counter filed by the Insurance Company, it is stated that the claimant is a Tortfeasor and even under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicle Act, the tortfeasor cannot be the claimant. Further, the quantum of compensation sought in the claim petition also questioned as excessive and exorbitant.
4. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence and provisions under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicle held that though the claimant has accepted his guilt and paid fine before the Criminal Court, he alone is not cause for the accident. The other motor vehicle has also contributed for the accident and therefore, when application is filed under no faulty liability clause, the Insurance Company cannot be exonerated from its liability. Taking note of the fact that the claimant has sustained fracture on his right thigh and two fingers, the Tribunal has assessed disability at 40% and has awarded a sum of Rs.3,11,660/-.
5. In the appeal, the Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company contended that the claim petition ought not to have been entertained in view of the fact that the claimant being the tortfeasor and he has admitted his guilt and had paid fine before the judicial Magistrate without any contest. Further, in the petition filed under Section 163(A) of Motor Vehicle Act, compensation ought not to have been awarded since the injury sustained by the claimants is not a schedule injury and his disability is not a total disability. The Tribunal, without adhering to the quantum prescribed under the Schedule -II of the Motor Vehicle Act, while assessing compensation under Section 163 (A) of the Motor Vehicle Act, has erroneously awarded exorbitant compensation.
6. The Learned Counsel for the claimant would submit that when two vehicles are involved in the accident though the claimant has pleaded guilty and paid fine before the judicial Magistrate, he cannot be treated sole as the Tortfeasor in the accident. The Tribunal has independently assessed the evidence and has held the claimant is entitled for due compensation. As far as the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal has taken note of medical expense and disability and has awarded fair and adequate compensation which need not be interfered.
7. The claim petition is filed under Section 163(A) of Motor Vehicle Act. The claimant is relieved of burden to prove negligence when he filed petition under Section 163(A) of Motor Vehicle Act but if the negligence is on the part of the claimant alone, he cannot take umbrage under Section 163(A) of Motor Vehicle Act being the claimant as well as the Tortfeasor. In this case, since another motor vehicle has also involved and accident has occurred due to head on collusion of two vehicles. Negligence cannot be solely fixed on
