C.M.A.No.567 of 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 18.07.2023

Coram:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

C.M.A.No.567 of 2018

1.M.Deepa

2. M.Suresh

3.M.Suganya

.. Appellants

Vs.

The Director

The Deputy Superintendent of Police

Vigilance and Anti-Corruption

Kanchipuram - 631 502

.. Respondent

Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, to set aside the order and decree passed by the Chief

Judge of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chennai, in M.C.O.P.No.549 of

2015 dated 14.11.2017.

For Appellants

: Mr.S.Parthasarathy

For Respondent

: Mr.P.Harish

Government Advocate

1/14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.No.567 of 2018

JUDGMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed to set aside the order and

decree passed by the learned Chief Judge of Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal, Chennai passed in M.C.O.P.No.549 of 2015 dated 14.11.2017.

2. The claimants are the appellants. Since one of the vehicles involved

in the accident was that of the respondent, they have been added as

respondent.

3. On 16.04.2014 at about 14.50 hours, while the deceased namely

Shanthi was travelling in an Auto bearing Regn. No.TN-05-H-4435, near

South Canal Bank Road, 4th Street, it colluded with a Police Jeep bearing

Regn. No.TN-21-G-6000, which was coming from the opposite direction, due

to which, the deceased sustained injuries and later, succumbed to the injuries

in the hospital. Therefore, the case was registered against the driver of the

said Auto and charge sheet was also filed. The claimants who are the

daughters and son of the deceased, had filed a claim petition before the

Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-.

2/14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.No.567 of 2018

4. The main defence taken by the respondent was that at the time of

accident, the driver of the said Auto, in which the deceased was travelling,

was in a drunken mood and in an inebriated condition and due to his rash and

negligent driving, his Auto dashed against the said Jeep belonging to the

respondent. Subsequently, a case was registered against the driver of the said

auto and charge sheet was also filed, whereas, neither the driver of the said

auto, nor the insurer of the Auto, were impleaded as party to the petition and

therefore, the claim petition was hit by non-joinder of necessary parties.

5. On the side of the claimants, 4 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to

P.W.4 and 4 documents were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4. On the side of the

respondent, one witness was examined as R.W.1 and 4 documents were

marked as Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.4.

6. After hearing both sides and upon considering the oral and

documentary evidence, the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition holding

that the claim against the respondent is not maintainable. Challenging the

same, the claimants have filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before

this Court.

3/14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.No.567 of 2018

7. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that mere non-

joinder of one of the owners of the vehicle and also the driver and Insurance

company which was involved in the said accident, is not fatal to the case and

the petition cannot be dismissed on the sole ground of non- joinder of one of

the co-vehicle's tort-feasors. He placed reliance on the Judgment of the

Karnataka High Court and this Court as follows:

1. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation

Vs. Arun reported in (2004) ACJ 249

2. National Insurance Company Limited Vs.

P.Kannan and Others in C.M.A.No.886 of 2011

8. The learned counsel further submitted that P.W.4 is the one who

gave the complaint before the Police, based on which, the complaint came to

be registered. Though in the complaint he has stated that the accident had

taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said Auto,

w