Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V.M. VELUMANI, J.
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Motor Third Party Cell, Chennai - Appellant
Versus
Srinivasan & Others - Respondent
C.M.A. Nos. 405 & 2928 of 2014
Decided On : 18-11-2020
Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation Claim - Section 173 - Public Place, Section 2(34) - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the definition of 'public place' as per Section 2(34) of the Motor Vehicles Act and referred to relevant case law to establish that an agricultural land can be deemed a public place. The court also interpreted the definition of 'Tractor' under Section 2(44) of the Motor Vehicles Act to establish that a Harvesting Tractor is considered a vehicle under the Act. These interpretations influenced the court's decision to hold the respondents liable for compensation.
Fact of the Case:
The claimants sought compensation for the death of an individual in a motor accident. The accident occurred in an agricultural land, and the claimants alleged rash and negligent driving by the vehicle owner. The insurance company denied liability, claiming the accident occurred in a private land and the vehicle was not defined under the law.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accident occurred in a public place, as per the definition in Section 2(34) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The court also determined that a Harvesting Tractor is considered a vehicle under the Act. The court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Tribunal based on these findings.
Issues: The key issues were whether the accident occurred in a public place and whether the Harvesting Tractor was considered a vehicle under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the definition of 'public place' and 'Tractor' under the Motor Vehicles Act, which led to the determination of liability and the enhancement of compensation.
Final Decision: C.M.A.No.405 of 2014 was dismissed, and C.M.A.No.2928 of 2014 was partly allowed. The court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the enhanced amount along with interest and costs.
JUDGMENT :
(Common Prayer: These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 28.11.2012, made in M.C.O.P. No.2882 of 2010, on the file of the VI Court of Small Causes, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Chennai.)
The matter is heard through "Video Conferencing".
C.M.A. No.2928 of 2014 is filed for enhancement of the compensation and C.M.A. No.405 of 2014 is filed against the award dated 28.11.2012, made in M.C.O.P. No.2882 of 2010, on the file of the VI Court of Small Causes, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Chennai.
2. Both the appeals arise out of the same accident and same award and hence, they are disposed of by this common judgment.
3. The parties are referred to as per their rank in the claim petition, for the sake of convenience.
4. The claimants filed M.C.O.P. No.2882 of 2010, on the file of the VI Court of Small Causes, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Chennai, claiming a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one Mottai, who died in the accident that took place on 22.03.2010.
5. According to the claimants, on the date of accident viz., 22.03.2010, while the deceased was working in the agricultural land at Semanagkoor Village, Singaravel land, Villupuram District, 1st respondent, driver-cum-owner of a Harvesting Tractor bearing Registration No.TN-32-R-7726 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased and caused the accident. In the accident, the deceased succumbed to fatal injuries. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the 1st respondent, driver-cum-owner of the Harvesting Tractor and hence, the claimants filed the claim petition, claiming compensation against the 1st respondent as driver-cum-owner and 2nd respondent as insurer of the offending vehicle.
6. The 1st respondent remained exparte before the Tribunal.
7. The 2nd respondent-Insurance Company filed counter statement and denied all the averments of the claimants in the claim petition. According to the 2nd respondent, when the Harvesting Tractor was harvesting the paddy field, the deceased invited the accident by crossing the field negligently without minding the horn raised by the 1st respondent. Hence, the deceased contributed negligence to the accident. The 1st respondent did not possess valid driving license to ply the vehicle and the Harvesting Tractor was not insured with the 2nd respondent at the time of accident. In any event, the claimants have to prove the age, avocation and income, injuries sustained and treatment taken by the deceased to claim compensation. In any event, the total compensation claimed by the claimants are excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
8. Before the Tribunal, the 1st claimant examined himself as P.W.1, Jeyaseelan, eye-witness as P.W.2 and marked 4 documents as Exs.P1 to P4. The 2nd respondent examined their Official as R.W.1 and marked one document as Ex.R1.
9. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the 1st respondent, driver-cum-owner of the Harvesting Tractor and directed the 2nd respondent as insurer of the vehicle to pay a sum of Rs.2,77,000/- as compensation to the claimants.
10. Against the said award dated 28.11.2012, made in M.C.O.P. No.2882 of 2010, the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company has filed C.M.A. No.405 of 2014 and not being satisfied with the amounts awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants have filed C.M.A. No.2928 of 2014, for enhancement of compensation.
11. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal erred in fastening the liability on the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company when the accident has occurred in a private land. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent contended that at the time of acc
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
