Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 56842
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J
SUBRAMANI S/o.late Karutharaj – Appellant
Versus
Muthuraj S/o.Balasubramaniam – Respondent
CMA NO. 1085 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K.Sudhakar
For the Respondents: Mr.V.Shanmuganathan, Mr.T.K. Premkumar
The court reaffirmed the interpretation of jurisdiction in accident claims, emphasizing a victim-centric approach under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173 - This appeal challenges the Tribunal's award dismissing a compensation claim due to purported lack of jurisdiction and alleged negligence on the deceased's part. The appellant contended that no credible evidence supported the Tribunal's findings regarding the deceased's state of sobriety and argued the jurisdiction issue was misapplied. (Paras 1-3, 7, 10)
(B) Jurisdiction - The court emphasized that the territorial jurisdiction related to accident claims should be liberally construed in favor of claimants, as upheld by prior case law which mandates a non-hyper-technical application of jurisdiction provisions. (Para 5)
Facts of the case:
The appeal arises from a motor accident claim involving an injury sustained on 10.09.2016. The Tribunal found jurisdiction issues and dismissed the appeal.
Findings of Court:
The court determined the appellant was entitled to compensation, implicating the insurance company for 85% liability due to the driver's negligence while recognizing partial contributory negligence. (Paras 11-14)
Issues: The main issues included the assessment of the deceased's sobriety, the Tribunal's jurisdiction, and entitlement to compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Tribunal's dismissal was unfounded, affirming that the jurisdiction should serve the victims' interests under the Motor Vehicles Act's benevolent provisions.
Result: Appeal allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the claim and jurisdictional argument. (Para 1) |
| 2. incident details and claims filed. (Para 2 , 4) |
| 3. defense arguments against the claim. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. court's evaluation of jurisdictional merits. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. conclusion on negligence and assignment of compensation. (Para 9) |
CMA NO. 1085 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 19-06-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI CMA NO. 1085 of 2024 SUBRAMANI S/o.late Karutharaj, P.Tharmathuppatty, North St, Aandipatti Tk, Theni Dist. and temporally at D/NO.13/5, Ramaiah Colony, East 1st Street, P.N.R.Road, Tiruppur.
Appellant(s)
Vs Muthuraj S/o.Balasubramaniam, 3/162, Pathrakaliamman Colony, Sivakasi. and 2 Others Respondent(s)
PRAYER: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , to set aside the Award dated 14.03.2024 made in MCOP.No.2186 of 2016 on the file of the Exclusive Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tiruppur.
For Appellant(s):
K.Sudhakar For Respondent(s):
Mr.V.Shanmuganathan For R 1 Mr.T.K. Premkumar For R3 R2 - The Notice returned with endorsement " Door Locked"
JUDGEMENT
The appellant has filed this appeal to set aside the Award dated
14.03.2024 made in MCOP.No.2186 of 2016 on the file of the Exclusive Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tiruppur.
2. The appellant is the claimants in M.C.O.P. No. 2186 of 2016 on the file of the Exclusive Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tiruppur. He filed the said claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 38,00,000/- for the injuries sustained in a motor accident which took place on 10.09.2016. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant is challenging the findings of the Award passed by the Tribunal on the following grounds:
(i) It is submitted that the finding of the Tribunal in dismissing the claim totally on the ground of lack of jurisdiction as well as negligence on the part of deceased, namely Bakyam @ Bakyanathan, is totally against evidence and all probablities of the case.
(ii) It is submitted that the Tribunal is not correct in holding that the deceased was in a drunken mood, as per the wound certificate Ex.P3, issued with respect to one Mr.Subramani, who was pillion rider. Admittedly, there is no document to show that the deceased was in a drunken mood and as per Ex.P7, post-mortem certificate clearly reveals that deceased was not in drunken condition.
(iii) The Tribunal failed to discus about other documents i.e.Ex.P7 (Post Mortem certificate) and mere admission of P.W.2 during the cross that 1st appellant husband was drunken condition, is not correct, as the same is contrary to documentary evidence. Likewise, PW1 also says that deceased had consumed alcohol, but all the documents are against the oral evidence.
(iv) The Tribunal failed to consider even for argument sake that if the deceased had consumed Alcohol, that means he was not is position to drive the vehicle and the same point was considered by this Court in 2016 (1) TN MAC 854. It is held that mere consuming alcohol, and smell of the alcohol, cannot be concluded that the person lost control of his mind and body. Moreover, in the counter statement of the 1st respondent, it is not stated that the deceased consumed alcohol and there is no pleading in the counter, but some stray admission in the cross need not be looked into.
(v) The Tribunal is not correct in saying that there is lack of territorial Jurisdiction of the Tribunal and the Tribunal had not considered the entire evidence of PW2 and taken few sentence in cross examination of the PW2 and concluded that Tribunal was not having jurisdiction. The Tribunal need not go into more hyper-technical approach for rejecting the compensation to the victims in a road accident case and same point was considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in 2016 (1) TNMAC 1 (SC). In case on hand, 3rd respondent / Branch office was within the jurisdiction of Tiruppur and the same was explained by P.W.1 in his proof affidavit in Para No.5, but there
