BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Date of Reserved 25.10.2025

Date of Pronounced 06.01.2026

CORAM

The Hon'ble Ms.Justice R.POORNIMA

CMA(MD)No.210 of 2014

P.A.Sekar @ P.Arulsekar : Appellant/1^st Respondent

Vs.

1.V.Venkataramani : R1/Petitioner

2.S.Ramesh : R2/2^nd Respondent

PRAYER:-Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the judgment and decreetal order, dated 20.08.2013 passed in MCOP No.236 of 2005 on the file of the

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Sub Court, Srivilliputhur.

For Appellant : Mr.S.Rajasekar

For R1 and R2 : Ex-parte, Vide court order, dated 11.09.2025

J U D G M E N T

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred against the judgment and decreetal order, dated 20.08.2013 passed in MCOP No.236 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Sub Court, Srivilliputhur.

2.The brief case of the claimant are as follows:-

On 23.03.1999 at about 07.00 p.m., the petitioner was walking alone near Green School road, at that time, a TVS Suzuki Max two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-28-Z-9402 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner. Due to it, he sustained fracture on the left thigh bone and dislocation of left knee. He was taking treatment in the Government Hospital as inpatient between 01.04.1999 and 15.04.1999 and thereafter, taking treatment as inpatient in Nagarathina Hospital for two months and still he is taking treatment.

3. At the time of the accident, he was aged about 53 and doing catering work and also cloth selling business and thereby, earning Rs.3,000/- per month. The claim petition is filed by the petitioner seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the alleged accident.

4. The first respondent filed a counter denying the entire allegation contained in the claim petitions; on hearing the scooter sound, due to his old age, the petitioner fell down and sustained injury and therefore, he is not liable to pay the any compensation and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

5. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimant, he was examined himself as P.W.1 and 11 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P11. On the side of the respondents, 2 witnesses were examined as R.W.1 and R.W.2 and no document was marked. The Xerox copy of CD file in STC No.565 of 2000 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Srivilliputhur, was marked as Ex.X1.

6. After considering the material evidence and records, the tribunal fixed the negligence at the ratio of 75% on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and 25% on the part of the claimant and awarded a compensation of Rs.39,750/- and directed the respondents to pay the compensation amount together with interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization within a period one month.

7. Aggrieved over the order of the Tribunal, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the appellant.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent act on the part of the claimant alone and negligence fixed on his part is wrong and that the appellant has already acquitted in the above said accident case in STC No.565 of 2000 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Srivilliputhur and therefore, the award of the Tribunal is to be set aside and the appeal is to be allowed.

9. This court considered the rival submission of the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

10. As contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, the Tribunal failed to consider the fact that he had already been acquitted in the criminal case by the learned Judicial Magistrate. Further the Accident was covered with full of pits and had a raised elevation, due to which the vehicles could be driven at a slow speed, leaving no scope, negligence driving. The accident occurred solely due to the sudden fall of the 1^st respondent, injured