Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 1447
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K. MURALI SHANKAR, J.
Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd., Rep. by its Branch Manager – Appellant
Versus
Malarkodi & Others – Respondent
C.M.A(MD) No. 161 of 2015
Decided On : 21-12-2020
For the Appellant :M.E. Ilango, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 to R5, G. Karnan, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's reliance on evidence and legal provisions to determine liability for the accident and assess the quantum of compensation.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Challenge to award passed in M.C.O.P.No.5 of 2009 - Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 - [Section 173, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988] - The court discussed the evidence presented by both parties and upheld the conclusion that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the Lorry Driver. The court also addressed the quantum of compensation and upheld the award, citing relevant legal provisions and judicial interpretations.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging an award passed in a motor vehicle accident claim. The claimants alleged that the deceased sustained fatal injuries due to a lorry driving recklessly, while the appellant/insurer argued that the deceased fell from a bicycle under the influence of alcohol and the lorry was not involved in the accident.
Finding of the Court:
The court found in favor of the claimants, upholding the conclusion that the accident was caused by the negligent driving of the lorry. The court also addressed the quantum of compensation and upheld the award, citing relevant legal provisions and judicial interpretations.
Issues: The issues included the responsibility for the accident, the quantum of compensation, and the validity of the impugned award.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the evidence presented, including witness testimony and medical records, to determine the cause of the accident and assess the quantum of compensation. The court also cited legal provisions and judicial precedents to support its decision.
Final Decision: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed, and the decreetal order confirming the award was upheld. The appellant/Insurance Company was directed to deposit the entire award amount with accrued interests and costs.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the fair and decreetal order dated 06.07.2013 made in M.C.O.P.No.5 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal I Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Thanjavur.)
1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, challenging the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.5 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal I Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Thanjavur.
2. Admittedly, the first respondent is the wife, respondents 2 to 4 are the daughters and the fifth respondent is the mother of the deceased Pakkirisamy. The case of the respondents 1 to 5/claimants is that on 30.03.2009, at about 06.30 pm., when the deceased Pakkirisamy was standing in front of Haji Petrol Bunk, a Lorry bearing registration No.TN-32-V-6347, after unloading of Petrol, was driven reversely in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the said Pakkirsamy, that the said Pakkirisamy had sustained serious injuries all over his body and was immediately taken to Thanjavur Medical College Hospital, that subsequently, he succumbed to the injuries and that the Lorry driver was solely responsible for the accident.
3. The defence of the Appellant/Insurer is that the Lorry owned by the 6th respondent herein was not at all involved in the accident, that the deceased under the complete influence of Alcohol had proceeded near the Petrol Bunk and suddenly fell down from the Bicycle and suffered injuries and that since the Lorry was in no way connected with the accident, the Appellant is not liable for the claim. The Appellant/Insurance Company has also disputed the age of the deceased and the quantum of compensation awarded.
4. During enquiry, the claimants, to prove their case, examined the first respondent, Malarkodi as P.W.1 and one Mohan alleged to be the occurrence witness as P.W.2 and exhibited 10 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10. The sixth respondent herein/first respondent, who is the owner of the Lorry, had remained exparte. On the side of the Appellant/Insurance Company, the Medical Officer, who had examined the deceased and admitted him as inpatient Dr.A.R.Sampath has been examined as R.W.1 and the copy of the investigation report filed to the Insurance Company has been exhibited as Ex.R.1.
5. The learned trial Judge, upon considering the evidence, both oral and documentary, came to the conclusion that the accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the sixth respondent's Lorry Driver and mulcted liability on the Appellant/Insurer. Aggrieved by the same, the Appellant/Insurance Company has come forward with the present appeal.
6. The points for consideration are:-
(i) Whether the Tribunal erred in holding that the Lorry driver was responsible for the accident by discarding the evidence of the Medical Officer and the contents of Accident Register and that by relying the hearsay evidence of P.W.1 and the evidence of P.W.2, the presence of whom at the occurrence place itself is doubtful?
(ii) Whether the quantum of compensation arrived at by the Tribunal is proper and is in accordance with law.?
(iii) Whether the impugned award, dated 06.07.2013 is liable to be interfered with?
Point No.1.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant/Insurance Company would strongly contend that the above claim is a fraudulent one in connivance with the first respondent, that the vehicle of the sixth respondent was not at all involved in the accident, that the deceased under the influence of Alcohol fell down from the Bicycle and sustained injuries by himself and that therefore, they are in no way responsible for the claim. In order to substantiate their defence, they have relied on the evidence of R.W.1/Medical Officer and the contents of Accident Register recorded by R.W.1.
8. No doubt, R.W.1/Medical Officer, who had first seen the injured/Pakkir
