Back
2021 Supreme(Mad) 3376
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S. ANANTHI, J.
The Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, - Appellant
Versus
Muniammal – Respondent
C.M.A.(MD).Nos.102 & 103 of 2020 and C.M.P.(MD)Nos. 7477 & 7478 of 2020
Decided on : 16-11-2021
Advocate Appeared
For the Appellant : Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan
For the Respondent: Mr.T.Selvakumaran
The main legal point established is that the presence of alcohol in the body of a two-wheeler rider does not automatically prove negligence, and liability for compensation is determined based on the evidence presented.
Headnote:
Negligence - Fatal Accident - The court upheld the decision of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, holding the insurance company liable for compensation due to the negligent driving of the two-wheeler rider and dismissing the appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a fatal accident where the deceased was traveling as a pillion rider on a moped and was hit by a two-wheeler. The claimants sought compensation, and the tribunal found the accident to be due to the negligent driving of the two-wheeler rider.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the evidence and arguments presented, concluding that the accident was caused by the negligent driving of the two-wheeler rider and upheld the tribunal's decision, dismissing the appeal.
Issues: The issues revolved around the cause of the accident, the liability of the insurance company, and the quantum of compensation to be awarded.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the evidence presented by the insurance company did not prove that the accident was solely due to the negligence of the moped rider, and upheld the tribunal's decision on liability and compensation.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals and confirmed the tribunal's order, holding the insurance company liable for compensation and permitting the claimants to withdraw the deposited amount.
ORDER :
1. These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been filed to set aside the fair and decreetal order, dated 07.02.2018 in M.CO.P.Nos.636 & 637 of 2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli.
2. It is a case of fatal accident, which took place on 09.08.2015, at about 07.15 p.m., the deceased Jeya was travelling in TVS XL Super bearing Regn. No.TN-72-BA-1704 as pillion rider with his father the deceased Gurusamy, near Kiruba Nagar Branch Road, on the Seevalaperi – Palayamkottai main road, a Bajaj Pulsar bearing Registration No.TN-72- BB-0535 belonging to the 4th respondent herein insured with the appellant herein came from the opposite direction in a high speed rashly and negligently came to the wrong side and hit against the moped. Due to the said accident, both were died.
3. The claimants have filed a petitions in M.C.O.P.Nos.636 & 637 of 2017 on the file of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, seeking compensation.
4. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants two witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 & 2 and marked seventeen documents as Exs.P.1 to P.17 and on the side of the insurance company R.W.1 & R.W.2 were examined and Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.3 were marked and the RTO report was marked as Ex.X.1.
5. The Tribunal, after considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidences and the arguments of the counsel for the claimants and the insurance company and also on appreciating the evidences on record, held that the accident was occurred only, due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the Bajaj Pulsar bearing Registration No.TN-72-BB-0535 and directed the appellant/insurance company to pay compensation.
6. Heard on either side. Perused the material documents available on record.
7. These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have filed on the ground that the tribunal ought to have found that the drunken driving of the moped in which the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider at the time of the accident was a sole reason for the accident and hence the findings of the Tribunal relating to negligence are incorrect. Without any proof the tribunal has fixed a sum of Rs.7500/-as notional monthly income. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is very higher and the same are liable to be reduced.
8. It is a fatal accident. The Insurance company has filed these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals and raised an objection that the tribunal ought to have found that the accident was occurred due to the negligent of the rider of the two wheeler, namely, Gurusamy, who was consuming liquor at the time of accident. Even though, alcohol found in the body of the deceased no adverse inference taken as per Judgment reported in 2013(1)TNMAC 854, in the case of Muniyasamy and Another Vs. Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Madurai. Mere presence of alcohol in the body of the two wheeler rider cannot prove the negligence of the driver.
9. Therefore, on evidence submitted by the Insurance Company has not proved the accident was occurred only due to the negligent driving of the rider of the two wheeler, namely; Gurusamy. So, the Tribunal has rightly fixed the liability on the appellant/insurance company.
10. The quantum awarded by the tribunal is also very reasonable.
11. Considering the age of the claimants and fixed the monthly income of deceased Gurusamy is Rs.10,500/-as his monthly income and also rightly deducted 1/3 amount for personal expenses and 25% income added as future prospectus also is correct. The monthly income was fixed for the deceased Jeya at Rs.7,500/-and 25% was fixed for future prospectus. Hence, the tribunal has rightly passed an award. Hence, this Court has no valid reason to interfere with the findings passed by the Court below.
12. Accordingly, these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed by confirming the fair and decreetal order, dated 07.02.2018 in M.CO.P.Nos.636 & 637 of 2017
