C.M.A(MD)No.1008 of 2014

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 07.04.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN

C.M.A(MD)No.1008 of 2014

and

M.P(MD)No.2 of 2014

M/s.National Insurance Company Limited,

represented by its Divisional Manager,

North Veli Street,

Madurai.

:Appellant/Second Respondent

.vs.

1.K.Balasubramanian

:Respondent/Petitioner

2.S.Mohammed Ibrahim

:Respondent/Ist Respondent

3.S.Sivagamasundari

:Respondent/Respondent-3

4.M/s.Reliance General Insurance Company Limited,

represented by its Divisional Manager,

Madurai.

:Respondent/Respondent-4

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and decree made in

M.C.O.P.No.1068 of 2012, dated 02.01.2014, on the file of the Motor

Accidents Claim Tribunal/Third Additional District and Sessions

Judge(PCR),Madurai.

For Appellant :Mr.R.Srinivasan

For Respondent-1 :Mr.G.Venugopal

For Respondent-2 :No appearance

For Respondent-3 :Mr.K.K.Senthil

(No appearance)

For Respondent-4 :Mr.V.Sakthivel

1/4

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

C.M.A(MD)No.1008 of 2014

JUDGMENT

*********

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the

judgment and decree made in M.C.O.P.No.1068 of 2012, dated

02.01.2014, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal/Third

Additional District and Sessions Judge(PCR),Madurai.

2.The second respondent before the Tribunal is the appllant

herein/Insurance Company. The appellant Insurance Company has filed

this appeal challenging the finding rendered by the Tribunal fixing

composite negligence at 75% : 25% between the drivers of the

respondent No.1 and respondent No.3 before the Tribunal.The

respondents 2 and 4 are the respective Insurance Companies of the

respective buses. According to the first respondent/claimant, the

accident took place on 7.4.2010. It is the case of the Petitioner

that the deceased Mayilsamy was riding a two-wheeler bearing

Registration No. TN 38 W 2628 on the left side of the road on the

four way track road from Dindigul to Madurai directions. Whileso,

the first respondent's vehicle and third respondent's vehicle came

in the wrong way on the opposite direction one behind another. The

first Respondent's vehicle came infront of the third respondent's

vehicle. Both the vehicle was driven by its dirvers in a rash and

negligent manner and dashed against the two wheeler driven by the

deceased. Hence the deceased sustained fatal injuries and inspite of

the treatment, he succumbed to injuries on 13.4.2010. Due to the

injuries he succumbed and then died.

3.On the point of quantum of compensation, there is no

challenge. The sole point that was urged before this Court is that

the appellant Insurance Company vehicle is insured for the vehicle

having Registration No. TN 58 T-9867. To prove the manner of the

accident, P.W.2 was examined. He would set the criminal law in

motion by filing the complaint under Ex.P3. In the Criminal Court,

as per Ex.P7-charges were framed and it is against the third

respondent's vehicle and charge has been framed under Section 304-

A of IPC. In the final report, both of them are shown as accused.

Based upon the evidence of P.W.2, the Tribunal has come to the

conclusion that the accident has taken place due to the composite

negligence on the part of both the drivers of both the buses and

they have dashed against the deceased who was travelling in the two

wheeler.

4.Admittedly, none of the drivers of both the buses are

examined by either of the owner, assumes significance. On perusal

of Ex.P3-FIR and the evidence of its author P.W.2, the Tribunal has

come to the conclusion that the vehicle insured with the appellant

Insurance Company dashed against the deceased at the first instance

and the other vehicle