Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 1993
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
M/s. National Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Erode – Appellant
Versus
R. Velusamy & Others – Respondents
C.M.A. No. 2461 of 2015 & M.P. No. 1 of 2015
Decided on : 09-10-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :J. Chandran, Advocate.
For the Respondents: S.P. Yuvaraj, adv
Failure to maintain a safe distance amounts to absolute negligence, dis-entitling the vehicle driver to claim compensation. The apportionment of liability and the quantum of compensation are determined based on contributory negligence and the nature of the injuries sustained.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Liability and Compensation - Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - [N/A] - [Section 173] - The court discussed the liability and compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Erode. It referenced the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in Nishan Singh & others Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and interpreted the failure to maintain a safe distance as absolute negligence, which dis-entitled the vehicle driver to claim compensation. The court also considered the apportionment of liability and the quantum of compensation, modifying the award based on the contributory negligence and the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant.
Fact of the Case:
The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident involving a school bus and a motorcycle. The Insurance Company contested the claim, arguing that the claimant was negligent and not entitled to compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the claimant sustained injuries and partial permanent disability due to the accident. It also determined the apportionment of liability and modified the quantum of compensation based on contributory negligence and the nature of the injuries.
Issues: The issues involved the negligence of the parties, apportionment of liability, and the quantum of compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that failure to maintain a safe distance amounts to absolute negligence, dis-entitling the vehicle driver to claim compensation. It also determined the apportionment of liability based on the contribution of each party to the accident.
Final Decision: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was partly allowed, and the award of the Tribunal was modified to Rs.1,04,280/- with interest. The appellant/Insurance Company was permitted to withdraw the excess amount, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 10.07.2014 on the file of the Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Subordinate Judge), Erode.)
(The case has been heard through video conference)
1. This Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company aggrieved by the liability and quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Erode.
2. The facts of the case is that, on 22.02.2015, the claimant while riding his pulser motorcycle bearing registration No.TN-33-AR-8267 along with one Vignesh proceeding on the Erode to Perundurai road, in front of B-Z world, the 1st respondent school bus bearing registration No.TN-33-P-4970 proceeding ahead of the two wheeler, without proper signal, stopped suddenly. The claimant lost the control and hit against the school bus on the rear left portion and fell down. In the said accident, the claimants sustained injuries in his right leg, knee and eyebrow. Had fracture in his left hand and shoulder bone. A sum of Rs.10,00,000/- sought as compensation for the medical expenses and disability.
3. The claim petition was contested by the Insurance Company on the ground that the negligence for the accident was rash and negligent driving of the two wheeler rider, who without affording necessary safe distance between the on going vehicle and his two wheeler rashly driven his vehicle and dashed. Being the tortfeasor for the accident, the claimant is not entitled for any compensation. There is no evidence to prove the claimant sustained partial permanent disability. The insurer also contended that the accident occurred due to hit and run vehicle. Since F.I.R given by the complainant himself does not mention about the registration number of the offending vehicle.
4. The Tribunal, on considering the rival submission, has held that it is not a hit and run. In the F.I.R itself, the claimant has mentioned that, it was the school bus, which was going ahead of him, stopped suddenly without any reason, was the cause for the accident and he did not notice the registration number of the vehicle.
5. Taking note of the fact that, the injured claimant was 2nd year M.C.A student and the injury sustained by him has caused 34% partial permanent disability. A sum of Rs.2,26,670/- was awarded as compensation, after deducting 25% for his contributory negligence.
6. In the appeal, it is contended that the driving a two wheeler without keeping the safe distance between the on going vehicle amounts to absolute negligence. Relying upon the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in Nishan Singh & others Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in 2018 (1) TAN MAC 745 (SC), which has held that failure to maintain safe distance will dis-entitled the vehicle driver to claim compensation, the appellant counsel prayed that the Tribunal award has to be set aside.
7. The Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/claimant would submit that the Tribunal, after taking note of the facts and on appreciation of the documents has fixed 25% negligence on the part of the claimant and has reduced the compensation by 1/4th. No further interference is required in the award amount.
8. In Nishan Singh case cited by the Learned Counsel for the appellant the accident occurred as a result of collusion of a Maruti car on the rear part of the Truck. The driver of the car, in the cross examination, admitted that, the gap between the Truck and his car was about 10 to 15 feet. The sketch of the accident site indicated that the road was 15 feet width. Therefore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, when there was enough space for negotiating, the car driver has collided with the truck from behind because he has not kept safe distance, specified in the traffic rules.
9. As far as, the facts of the case in hand is concerned, from the motor vehicl
