IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 27.09.2012

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESAN

CMA.No.2168/2008

Muniappan

Appellant/Petitioner

Vs

1.National Insurance Company Limited

Branch office III

Salem 636 004

2.D.Gopinath

3.M.Rathinam

Respondents

(R-3 impleaded as per order dated 29.2.2012

in M.P.1/12 in CMA No.2168 of 2008

Prayer:- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed u/s 173 of

M.V.Act 1988 against the Judgement and Decree dated 31.7.2007 made

in MCOP.No.1726/2003 by the learned Principal District Judge (MACT)

Krishnagiri.

For Appellant :

Mr.S.Sathiaseelan

For Respondent :

Mr.Srinivasan Ramalingam-R1

JUDGEMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the claimant,

whose claim petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act

claiming compensation of Rs.5 lakhs for the injuries sustained by

him in the motor accident that had occurred on 14.11.2002 was

negatived and a compensation of Rs.25000/- was granted under

Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act under 'No Fault Liability" by

the Judgement and Decree dated 31.7.2007 made in MCOP.No.1726/2003

by the learned Principal District Judge (MACT) Krishnagiri.

2. The brief facts, which are necessary for the disposal

of this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, are that on 14.11.2002 at

about 6.40 p.m. the claimant was travelling in a share auto along

with his relatives from Nallampatti to Avvainagar to attend a death

condolence and when the share auto was proceeding near Nagarkoodal

bridge, a tempo was taken on reverse by its driver and on seeing

the tempo being taken on reverse by its driver, the driver of the

share auto, instead of making efforts to avoid the vehicle hitting

the tempo, jumped out from the share auto and the share auto went

and hit against the rear side of the tempo, as a result of which,

the claimant and other passengers in the share auto sustained

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

injuries.

3. In the claim petition, it is alleged that the driver

of the share auto was negligent in causing the accident and

therefore, the claim petition was filed against the owner and the

Insurer of the share auto. In the counter filed by the Insurance

Company, apart from denying the allegations made in the claim

petition, it was contended that the share auto was not insured with

the Insurance Company at the relevant period.

4. Before the Tribunal, the injured claimant examined

himself as PW.1 and deposed that when the tempo was moving on

reverse by its driver with red signals on, the driver of the share

auto had driven the share auto in a rash and negligent manner and

dashed against the rear side of the tempo and thus caused the

accident. The First Information Report was marked as Ex.P1 before

the Tribunal, in which it has been averred that the tempo van was

stationed in the middle of the bridge without any space on other

side and on seeing this, the driver of the share auto got down from

the share auto and was standing by the side of the auto. At that

time, the driver of the tempo moved the vehicle on reverse and

dashed against the share auto. Due to the said impact, the share

auto capsized on its right side causing injuries to the

passengers. The Tribunal, taking note of the contrary evidence led

by the claimants, inasmuch as PW'1s evidence shows that the

accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of

the share auto driver, whereas in Ex.P1 the averments made

indicated that the tempo driver was negligent in causing the

accident, came to the conclusion that claimant is not entitled to

any compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act and

awarded a compensation of Rs.25000/- under 'No Fault Liability',

which is under challenge in this appeal.

5. The involvement of vehicles, namely the share auto

and the tempo, is not disputed. In fact, the evidence of PW.1 an