Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 37709
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Mrs.Justice V.Bhavani Subbaroyan, Mr Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan, JJ
THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE COMP – Appellant
Versus
RENGA BAI – Respondent
C.M.A(MD)No.350 of 2020 and C.M.P(MD)No.4527 of 2020
Mr.N.Dilipkumar, Mr.V.Sasikumar, Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan, Mr.S.Mahalingam, Mr.C.Jawahar Ravindran
Compensation claims under the Motor Vehicles Act are not negated by compassionate appointments, and contributory negligence must be clearly established.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 166 and 168 - Appeal against award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Claimants' son died in motorcycle accident due to negligent driving of bus - Tribunal found negligence on part of bus driver and awarded compensation - Insurance Company challenged the award citing contributory negligence and compassionate appointment of deceased's wife - Court upheld Tribunal's findings and principles regarding compensation. (Paras 8, 10, 23, 25)
(B) Negligence - Determination of negligence in motor accidents - The court emphasized that contributory negligence must be established with clear evidence and cannot be assumed. (Paras 20, 22)
(C) Compensation - The principle that compassionate appointment does not negate the right to claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act was reiterated. (Paras 23, 24)
Facts of the case:
The claimants filed a petition after their son, a police constable, died in a motorcycle accident caused by a bus. The Tribunal awarded compensation based on evidence of negligence by the bus driver.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal's award was confirmed, emphasizing the lack of evidence for contributory negligence and the irrelevance of compassionate appointment to compensation claims.
Issues: The main issues were whether the deceased contributed to the accident and if the award was just.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the evidence did not support contributory negligence and that compassionate appointment does not affect compensation rights.
Result: Appeal dismissed; Tribunal's award confirmed.
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was made by K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN .J.]
The second respondent in M.C.O.P.No.1595 of 2014, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli has filed this appeal challenging the award passed in the above said claim petition.
2. The respondents 1 & 2, who are the claimants, filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.1595 of 2014 with the following averments:-
(i) On 23.07.2014 at about 05.00 p.m., their son namely Sujin Kumar drove the Yamaha motorcycle bearing registration No.TN-75-Q-3855 along with one Suresh as pillion rider along the Tiruvandram to Nagercoil main road from Thuckalay to Nagercoil. When he was riding the said vehicle in a slow speed observing traffic rules towards East, a bus bearing registration No.K.L.15-8661 belonging to the third respondent herein insured with the appellant Insurance Company came from the opposite direction in a negligent manner and hit the motorcycle of the deceased.
(ii)As a result, the deceased along with the pillion rider sustained injuries. The deceased sustained serious head injuries and died on the spot itself. Therefore, FIR was registered in Cr.No.573 of 2014, for the offences under Sections 279, 337 & 304-A IPC.
(iii) At the time of accident, the deceased was working as Police Constable in the Indo Tibetian Border Police and earned more than Rs.25,000/- per month. The respondents 1 & 2 are the mother and father of the deceased and the fourth respondent herein is the wife of the deceased.
3. The first respondent in the claim petition filed counter denying the negligence and there was no denial of the involvement of the accident and stated that the fourth respondent, who is the wife of the deceased, has every chance to get a job of the husband on compassionate ground and due to the negligence of the deceased, the accident had occurred. Therefore, the Insurance Company, namely, the 6th respondent herein is liable to pay the compensation.
4. The appellant/second respondent in the claim petition filed counter stating that the driver of the first respondent did not possess the valid driving licence. He also stated that the police officer has registered a case and from the averments made in the FIR, negligence is only on the part of the deceased. Hence, he seeks for dismissal of the claim petition.
5. The third respondent, viz., the wife of the deceased in the claim petition filed counter stating that she is entitled to seek compensation.
6. The 5th respondent in the claim petition, who is the insurer of the two-wheeler, filed counter reiterating the averments made by the claimants in the claim petition and stated that only due to the negligence of the driver of the bus, the accident had happened.
7. To prove the case of the claimants, they examined two witnesses as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 and on the side of the respondents, R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and marked Ex.R1 to Ex.R5.
8. The learned Tribunal Judge accepting the evidence of P.W.2, who is the independent eye witness to the occurrence and disbelieving the evidence of R.W.2 driver of the bus, fixed the negligence on the part of the second respondent insurance company/appellant and award amount was calculated as per the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2017(2) TNMAC 609 (SC) [National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Pranay Sethi].
9.Challenging the same, the Insurance Company has filed this appeal. Even though, at the time of admission, notice of motion was ordered only on the question of negligence aspect, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company made a submission that since the third respondent, who is the wife of the deceased, got the compassionate appointment, the claim petition filed by the respondents 1 & 2, who are the parents of the deceased, is not maintainable.
10.The learned counsel for the Insurance Company/appellant would submit that the sketch marked under Ex.R2, Ex.R3- Observation Mahazer, Ex.R4-MVI Report and Ex.R5-MVI Report and from the
