Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 32544
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21.02.2024 CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI Crl.O.P.(MD) No.4922 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.(MD).Nos.3485 & 3486 of 2022 Nagalingam ... Petitioner Vs.
1.State represented by The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District.
(in Crime No.916 of 2020) 2.The Inspector of Police, Thanjavur Taluk Police Station, Thanjavur District.
3.Selvaraj ...Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to call for the records pertaining to S.S.C.No.52 of 2020 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Court (PCR), Thanjavur and quash the same insofar as the petitioner is concerned.
For petitioner : Mr.A.Arun Prasad For R~1 & R~2 : Mr.P.Kottaichamy, Government Advocate (Criminal Side) For R~3 : No Appearance
Implication under the SC/ST Act must be sustainable, and specific allegations must be made against the accused.
Headnote:
Accused No.2 - Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 - Quashing of proceedings
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Accused No.2, was charged under Sections 294(b) and 355 IPC r/w Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 for allegedly digging mud and causing a groove in the complainant's street during the corona pandemic.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner, being a member of a depressed community, was implicated under the SC/ST Act, which was not sustainable. It was noted that the allegation against the petitioner was limited to instigating others to commit the crime, and no other specific allegation was made against the petitioner.
Issues: Implication of the petitioner under the SC/ST Act, Allegation of instigation against the petitioner
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the petitioner's depressed community status and the limited nature of the allegation against the petitioner in quashing the proceedings against the petitioner.
Final Decision: The proceedings in S.S.C.No.52 of 2020 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Court (PCR), Thanjavur were quashed insofar as the petitioner is concerned. The Criminal Original Petition stands allowed, and the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
COMMON JUDGMENT
The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are preferred by the Insurance Company and they are directed against the award passed in the batch of claim petitions filed in connection with the motor accident happened on 29.02.2004 when a goods carrier (mini lorry), bearing Registration No.TCT-5968 capsized, causing death of two persons and injuries to 6 others, who were travelling in the vehicle along with load of vegetables.
2. The Insurance Company contested the claim petitions denying it's liability. Though they admit the accident and the insurance coverage of the vehicle with them, the liability to indemnify the owner of the vehicle was denied, for the reason that the policy issued does not cover unauthorised passengers. Terming the claimants as gratuitous / unauthorised passengers and relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Boomithi Subbhayamma and others (2005 (12) SCC 243 : 2005 ACJ 721), the claim petitions were resisted contending that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation for gratuitous passengers. Also, the Insurance Company denied the averment that the accident victims were owners of the goods transported in the vehicle. According to the Insurance Company, what they carried with them was their luggage and not goods. Pointing the fact that in the goods vehicle, 17 persons were travelling at the time of accident, it was contented that allowing more than 6 persons to accompany the goods is violation of policy condition.
3. The Tribunal considering the language used in Section 147(1) of Motor Vehicles Act and the evidence of P.W.1 along with the F.I.R. [Ex.P1], accepted the case of the claimants that all the victims of the accident travelled in the goods vehicle carrying their goods. They were farmers carrying their agricultural produce to the market. From the Observation Mahazar marked as Ex.P3, which shows vegetable scattered around the capsized vehicle and from the evidence of R.W.1 the cleaner of the vehicle, it is proved that along with the load of vegetables, the owners were travelling in the vehicle. Therefore, relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Kumar vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others [2001 (6) SCC 713 : 2001 ACJ 1565] and the judgment of this Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd., Dharmapuri vs. A.Govindan and another [2002 ACJ 539], allowed the claim petitions and passed award as below in the respective claim petitions.
| M.C.O.P. & C.M.A. Nos. | Claimant's name | Amount |
| M.C.O.P.No.424 of 2004 [C.M.A.(MD)No.397 of 2008] | Selvaraj [Injured claimant] | Rs.69,830/- |
| M.C.O.P.No.425 of 2004 [C.M.A.(MD)No.398 of 2008] | Pacikasamy[Injured claimant] | Rs.86,170/- |
| M.C.O.P.No.539 of 2004 [C.M.A.(MD)No.399 of 2008] | Jeganathan [Injured claimant] | Rs.44,000/- |
| M.C.O.P.No.540 of 2004 [C.M.A.(MD)No.400 of 2008] | Therisamy [Injured claimant] | Rs.48,500/- |
| M.C.O.P.No.871 of 2004 [C.M.A.(MD)No.401 of 2008] | LRs. of the deceased Andavar | Rs.2,41,200/- |
| M.C.O.P.No.872 of 2004 [C.M.A.(MD)No.402 of 2008] | LRs. of the deceased Ramasamy | Rs.2,84,600/- |
| M.C.O.P.No.298 of 2005 [C.M.A.(MD)No.403 of 2008] | R.Antony [Injured claimant] | Rs.88,900/- |
| M.C.O.P.No.182 of 2006 [C.M.A.(MD)No.359 of 2012] | Kanagaraj [Injured claimant] | Rs.12,500/- |
| M.C.O.P.No.788 of 2005 [C.R.P.(MD)No.483 of 2008] | Selvaraj [Injured claimant] | Rs.7,000/- |
4. In the appeals, reiterating the defence, the learned counsel for the appellant/ Insurance Company contended that, the Tribunal failed to take note of the fact that the insurance policy does not cover the passengers travelling in the goods vehicle. The judgment reported in 2005 ACJ 768 [Deddula Padmavathi and others vs. Maddala Srinivasa Rao and another] not properly appreciated by the Tribunal. The vegetable bags carried by the victims can only be construed as luggage and not as goods. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance C
