Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 75872
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
The Divisional Manager – Appellant
Versus
G.Chandrasekar – Respondent
CMA(MD)Nos.513 and 1061 of 2024 | CMP(MD)Nos.6813, 11009 and 11325 of 2024 | Cross Objection(MD) No.57 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: B. Rajesh Saravanan, Ponkarthikeyan
For the Respondents: Ponkarthikeyan
Accident register entries noting alcohol influence and rough sketch showing rider on wrong side are sufficient evidence to fix contributory negligence in motor accident claims, even without medical examination under Section 185 of Motor Vehicles Act.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173 - Appeal against award - Contributory negligence - Evidence of alcohol influence - Accident register and rough sketch - Compensation reduction - Principles of just compensation.
(B) Evidence - Accident register - Entry recording that rider and pillion were under influence of alcohol immediately after accident, made by treating doctor, is sufficient to prove drunken driving for purpose of fixing contributory negligence, even if not subjected to medical examination as per Section 185 of Motor Vehicles Act. (Para 10)
(C) Contributory negligence - Rough sketch showing that the motorcycle was on the extreme right side of the road and dashed against the oncoming vehicle indicates rider lost control - Tribunal’s fixing of 10% negligence on rider modified to 25% in view of evidence. (Paras 9-11)
Facts of the case:
On 23.08.2015, the rider of a motorcycle (first respondent in one appeal) was riding with a pillion (first respondent in other appeal). A Toyota Etios insured with the appellant insurance company came from opposite direction and collided with the motorcycle. Both riders sustained injuries. The Tribunal held the driver of the insured vehicle responsible but fixed 10% contributory negligence on the rider based on the accident register noting alcohol influence. The insurer appealed to fix 100% negligence on the rider, while the rider filed a cross objection against the 10% negligence. The appellant insurance company also challenged the compensation amounts.
Findings of Court:
The court examined the rough sketch (Ex.X.5) and accident registers (Ex.X.6 and X.7). The rough sketch showed the motorcycle was on the extreme right side of the road, indicating loss of control. The accident registers recorded that both rider and pillion were under the influence of alcohol. The court rejected the argument that proof under Section 185 was required, as the immediate medical record was sufficient for civil liability. The court modified the negligence ratio to 25% on the rider and 75% on the driver of the insured vehicle. Consequently, the compensation amounts were reduced proportionately.
Issues: (i) Whether the Tribunal’s fixation of 10% contributory negligence on the rider was correct? (ii) Whether the evidence of alcohol influence without medical examination could be relied upon? (iii) Whether the compensation should be reduced?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the accident register is a reliable contemporaneous document showing alcohol influence, and the rough sketch demonstrates the rider’s fault. Therefore, contributory negligence of the rider must be increased from 10% to 25%, and compensation reduced accordingly. The earlier Division Bench judgment regarding strict proof under Section 185 was distinguished because the present case involved immediate doctor’s recording.
Result: CMA(MD)No.513 of 2024 partly allowed - compensation reduced from Rs.31,75,328 to Rs.23,81,496. CMA(MD)No.1061 of 2024 partly allowed - compensation reduced from Rs.1,11,000 to Rs.83,250. Cross Objection (MD) No.57 of 2024 dismissed. Insurance company to deposit remaining 75% liability with interest at 7.5% p.a. from date of claim petition.
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was made by G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN , J.]
Since these cases have been filed against the common award passed in the two claim petitions filed by the claimants arising out of the same accident, all the cases were heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.
2. CMA(MD)No.513 of 2024 has been filed by the insurer as against the award passed in favour of the rider of the two wheeler.
3. CMA(MD) No. 1061 of 2024 has been filed by the insurer as against the claim made by the pillion rider of the motor cycle.
4.Cross objection (MD) No.57 of 2024 has been filed by the rider of the motor cycle as against the contributory negligence fixed by the Tribunal.
5. The brief facts of the case are that on 23.08.2015, one Chandrasekar/claimant in MCOP.No.305/2020 was riding his two wheeler slowly and carefully to Srirangam bus stand to drop his father- in-law namely, Mani/claimant in MCOP.No.299/2020 who seated as pillion in the two wheeler. While so, the driver of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.TN 45 BA 6255 Toyota Etios insured with the appellant insurance company came in the opposite direction in a rash and nelgigent manner and dashed against the two wheeler. Due to the impact, the rider of the vehicle as well as the pillion fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately both of them were taken to hospital and admitted as inpatient. For the injuries sustained by them, they filed separate claim petitions. MCOP No.305 of 2020 was filed by the rider of the motor cycle and MCOP No.299 of 2020 was filed by the pillion rider of the motor cycle. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the driver of the vehicle insured with the appellant was responsible for the accident and awarded compensation of Rs. 31,75,328 in MCOP No.305 of 2020 and Rs. 1,11,000/- as compensation in MCOP No.299 of 2020 by an order dated 31.08.2023. However, the Tribunal taking note of the Accident Register copy of the rider of the vehicle that the rider was under the influence of alcohol at the time of accident, fixed negligence in the ratio of 90 : 10 as between the 2nd respondent and the rider of the two wheeler and directed the appellant to pay the compensation to the claimants in respect of 90% negligence fixed on the 2nd respondent/owner of the offending vehicle.
6. Pending appeal, after receipt of notice, the rider of the motor cycle in MCOP No.305 of 2020 has filed cross objection questioning the fixation of 10% negligence on him.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants in both the appeals would submit that both the rider of the motor cycle as well as the pillion were under the influence of alcohol and rider alone drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. Though the Tribunal found drunken drive on the part of the rider of the motor cycle, instead of fixing entire negligence on the rider, it has erroneously fixed negligence in the ratio of 90 : 10 as between the driver of the vehicle insured with the appellant and the rider of the motorcycle. He would further submit that the Tribunal has also failed to consider that the FIR registered against the 2nd respondent has been closed as mistake of fact and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have exonerated the appellant by fixing entire negligence on the rider of the motorcycle.
8. Per contra the learned counsel appearing for the Cross Objector would submit that though the rider of the motor cycle and the pillion were under the influence of alcohol as recorded in the accident register , both of them were not subjected to any medical examination to prove the same. Therefore, no negligence can be fastened on the rider of the motor cycle on the ground that he was under the influence of alcohol. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Manikandan vs. P.Palani and others reported in 2020 (3) CTC 157, wherein, it has been held that though the discharge summary s
