1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04.08.2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.345 of 2011 M/s.Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. rep. by its Divisional Manager, No.16, North Veli Street, Madurai – 1. .. Appellant/3rd Respondent Vs. 1.A.G.Vasantha 2.A.G.Hariharan 3.A.G.Ramalakshmi 4.A.G.Sridevi Lakshmi .. 1 to 4 Respondents/ 1 to 4 Petitioners 5.Irulandi .. 5th Respondent/1st Respondent 6.L.Ramasamy .. 6th Respondent/2nd Respondent Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 02.12.2010 passed in M.C.O.P.No.163 of 2008 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/First Additional District Court, Madurai. For Appellant .. Mr.K.Bhaskaran For Respondents .. Mr.M.P.Senthil 1 to 4 For Respondent 5 .. Ex-parte For Respondent 6 .. No appearance JUDGMENT This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been directed against the award dated 02.12.2010 passed in M.C.O.P.No.163 of 2008 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/First Additional District Court, Madurai. 2. The respondents 1 to 4 herein as petitioners have filed M.C.O.P.No.163 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal praying to pass an award of Rs.6,00,000/- by way of compensation, wherein the present appellant has been shown as third respondent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3. It is averred in the petition that on 04.11.2007 at about 08.00 a.m., the deceased viz., A.R.Gopalram and his wife (first petitioner) have walked from Krishnapuram Colony to Bibikulam on the eastern side of the road. At that time, a jeep bearing Registration No.TMX-7246 has been driven from opposite direction and due to rash and negligent driving of its driver, the accident has happened. Due to accident, the deceased has sustained several fatal injuries and subsequently passed away on 07.11.2007. Under the said circumstances, the present petition has been filed for getting the relief sought for therein. 4. In the counter filed on the side of the second respondent it is stated that on the date of accident, the second respondent is not the owner of the jeep alleged to have involved in the accident. On 30.06.2000, he sold the same in favour of a third person. The second respondent is an unnecessary party and the deceased himself has invited the accident and there is no merit in the petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. 5. In the counter filed on the side of the third respondent it is stated that the vehicle involved in the accident is nothing, but a jeep with trailer. The third respondent is liable to pay only as per terms and conditions of policy, if the jeep and trailer have been duly insured with the third respondent. The first respondent alone is liable to pay compensation and there is no merit in the petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. 6. On the basis of the available rival evidence on record, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,03,000/- by way of compensation. Against the liability fixed upon the third respondent, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred at the instance of the third respondent as appellant. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/third respondent has not touched the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and his only argument is that after accident the driver of the jeep has admitted the deceased in Vadamalayan Hospital and due to that Ex.C.1 has come into existence, wherein it has been stated that the accident has happened due to trailer and the trailer has not been insured with the third respondent and therefore the third respondent cannot be mulcted with liability, but the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has failed to consider Ex.C.1 and therefore the entire liability fixed upon the third respondent is liable to be set aside. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4/petitioners has contended that in the instant case, the first petitioner viz., Vasantha is an eye witness and she has been examined as P.W.1 and her specific evidence is that the jeep in question has dashed against her husband viz., the deceased by name A.R.Gopalram and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal after considering the available evidence on record has rightly fixed liability upon the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 third respondent and therefore the contention putforth on the side of the appellant/third respondent is liable to be rejected. 9. For considering the rival submissions made on either side, the Court has to look into the available evidence on record. The first petitioner has been examined as P.W.1 and her specific evidence is that the accident has happened only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep and the jeep alone has hit against her husband. From the evidence of P.W.1, the Court can safely come to a conclusion that the entire accident has happened only due to alleged rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep bearing Registration No.TMX-7246. Even though on the side of the appellant/third respondent, it has been contended that the trailer in question has dashed against the deceased, no oral evidence has been adduced to that effect. The driver of the first respondent is the competent person to speak about the factum of accident so as to controvert the evidence adduced on the side of the petitioners. But he has not been examined either on the side of the first respondent or on the side of the third respondent. Therefore viewing from any angle, the contention urged on the side of the appellant/third respondent cannot be accepted. 10. As stated earlier, there is no grievance with regard to quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on the side of the appellant/third respondent. Under the said circumstances, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal deserves to be dismissed. 11. In fine, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed without costs and the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.163 of 2008 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/First Additional District Court, Madurai is confirmed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (P&A) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ First Additional District Judge, Madurai. C.M.A(MD)No.345 of 2011 04.08.2011 smn NSV/19.8.11/3P/2C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/