Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 55641
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.MURALI SHANKAR, J
THE BRANCH MANAGER – Appellant
Versus
PANDI S/O.BALU – Respondent
C.M.A(MD)No.846 of 2017 and C.M.P.(MD)No.9009 of 2017
Mr.B.Vijay Karthikeyan, Mr.T.Selvakumaran, for Mr.J.Milton Arul Rajedran.
A claimant who is the tort-feasor cannot claim compensation under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, and personal accident cover only extends to specified injuries.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 163(A) and 166 - Compensation for disability due to accident - Claimant, a load man, suffered grievous injuries leading to amputation while riding his motorcycle - Insurer challenged liability and quantum of compensation awarded by Tribunal. (Paras 2, 3, 8, 21)
(B) Tortfeasor - Claimant was found to be the tort-feasor as the accident occurred due to his own rash and negligent riding - Claim under Section 163(A) not maintainable as the claimant was the owner and driver of the vehicle involved. (Paras 10, 11, 13)
(C) Personal Accident Cover - Claimant entitled to compensation under personal accident cover for permanent disability, but not for pain and suffering or future medical expenses. (Paras 19, 21)
Facts of the case:
The claimant was riding his motorcycle when he lost control due to a mechanical defect, resulting in grievous injuries and amputation of his left leg. He was 26 years old and earning over Rs.10,000/- per month. The insurer contended that the claimant was negligent and thus not entitled to compensation.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the claimant was solely responsible for the accident and reduced the compensation from Rs.2,36,000/- to Rs.60,000/- under the personal accident cover policy.
Issues: The main issues were whether the claimant could claim compensation under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act and the extent of liability of the insurer.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the claimant, being the tort-feasor, could not claim compensation under Section 163(A) and that the personal accident cover policy only provided limited compensation for specified injuries.
Result: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal partly allowed; compensation reduced to Rs.60,000/-.
JUDGMENT
The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.45 of 2014, dated 20.03.2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Judge), Theni.
2. The appellant/Insurer, who was directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,36,000/- with interest and costs to the respondent/claimant for the disability suffered by him consequent to an accident occurred no 25.06.2014, challenged the liability mulcted on it and also the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
3. The case of the claimant is that on 25.06.2014, the respondent/petitioner after finishing his work as a load man was riding his motor cycle Bajaj Discover bearing Reg.No.TN-60-F-5146 in Theni to Koduvilarpatti Main Road from north to south near Aranmanai Pudur Pillayar Temple at about 04.00 pm., and after seeing the speedy vehicles coming from the opposite direction, the claimant tried to control his motor cycle, but due to mechanical defect, lost the control and accident was occurred and as a result of which, he suffered grievous injuries all over his body; that the petitioner was taken to Theni Government Hospital and he was then referred to Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai for further treatment and that the claimant's left leg was amputated below knee.
4. It is the further case of the claimant that he was aged 26 years at that time and was doing load man work and was earning more than Rs.10,000/- per month.
5. The defence of the appellant/respondent is that the claimant is the owner of the two wheeler bearing Reg.No.TN-60-F-5146 at the time of accident; that the claimant has driven his two wheeler in a rash and negligent manner and fell down by himself on the road and the accident had happened due to the fault of the claimant; that since the accident was occurred only due to the negligence of the claimant, being a wrong doer cannot claim compensation and that therefore, the respondent/petitioner is not liable for the claim.
6. During trial, the claimant has examined himself as P.W.1 and exhibited five documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5. The appellant/respondent has examined its Senior Legal Officer Thiru.Mithun Maharaja as R.W.1 and exhibited the copy of Insurance Policy as Ex.R.1. The Disability Certificate of the claimant has been exhibited as Ex.C.1.
7. The learned trial Judge, upon considering the evidence both oral and documentary and on hearing the arguments of both the sides, has passed the impugned award, dated 20.03.2017, holding that the accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent riding of the claimant, but mulcted liability on the appellant/insurer, directing them to pay compensation of Rs.2,36,000/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal came to be filed.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant/insurer would contend that the injured himself was the tort-feasor, as he had caused the accident by his own negligence and as such, the claim petition itself is not legally maintainable under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and that the very claim petition filed under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act is legally unsustainable.
9. Admittedly, except the vehicle Bajaj Discover bearing Reg.No.TN-60-F-5146 ridden by the claimant, no other vehicle was involved in the accident. Moreover, a criminal case in Crime No.420 of 2014 on the file of the Palanichettipatti Police Station, came to be registered as 'accidental fall'. Even according to the claimant, when he was proceeding in Theni to Koduvilarpatti Main Road from north to south near Aranmanai Pudur Pillayar Temple, after noticing the vehicles coming from the opposite direction speedily, he tried to control his vehicle, but lost the control and as a result of which, he fell down and sustained injuries. Though he has alleged that he lost the control of the vehicle due to the mechanical defect, he has not produced any iota of evidence to substantiate the same. He has not even chosen to produce the motor vehicle inspection repo
