1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:12.07.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM C.M.A.(MD).Nos.379 to 384 of 2011 United India Insurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager, 144-B, Kalpana Road, Udumalaipettai. ... Appellant/2nd respondent in all C.M.As Vs. Respondents in C.M.A.Nos.379, 381 & 382 of 2011 1.Muthukaruppi Achi ... 1st Respondent/Petitioner 2.Vishnuvardhan Paper Mills Limited, through its Proprietor, Madathukulam, Udumalaipettai, Coimbatore District. ... 2nd Respondent/1st Respondent in CMA.Nos.379,381 Respondents in C.M.A.No.380 of 2011 1.Muthukaruppi Achi ... 1st Respondent/Petitioner 2.Vishnuvardhan Paper Mills Limited, through its Proprietor, Madathukulam, Udumalaipettai, Coimbatore District. ... 2nd Respondent/1st Respondent 3.A.K.A.A.Karuppan Chettiar ...3rd respondent/3rd respondent 4.Tmt.K.Alagammai ...4th respondent/4th respondent Respondents in C.M.A.No.383 of 2011 1.Tmt.Visalakshi ... 1st Respondent/Petitioner 2.Vishnuvardhan Paper Mills Limited, through its Proprietor, Madathukulam, Udumalaipettai, Coimbatore District. ... 2nd Respondent/1st Respondent Respondents in C.M.A.No.384 of 2011 1.Tmt.Alagammai ... 1st Respondent/Petitioner 2.Vishnuvardhan Paper Mills Limited, through its Proprietor, Madathukulam, Udumalaipettai, Coimbatore District. .. 2nd Respondent/1st Respondent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 (2nd respondent in all CMAs remained exparte before the tribunal.) notice to R-2 is dispensed with) Common Prayer: Appeals filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the common judgment and decree dated 29.06.2010 and made in M.C.O.P.Nos.1119, 1120, 1121, 1122, 1155 and 1156 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Principal District Judge, Dindigul. For Appellant in all C.M.As : Mr.V.R.Subramanian For Respondents in all C.M.As : Mr.P.Sathish Murugan for M/S Hindu Associates for R-1 R-2-Ex-parte No appearance For R3 R4 in CMA.380/2011 C O M M O N J U D G M E N T These civil miscellaneous appeals have been preferred against the common award passed in M.C.O.P.Nos.1119, 1120, 1121, 1122, 1155 and 1156 of 2005 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Principal District Court, Dindigul. 2.The first respondent herein in all the petitions as petitioners have filed M.C.O.P.Nos.1119, 1120, 1121, 1122, 1155 and 1156 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal praying to award compensation as mentioned in each petition, wherein, the present appellant has been shown as second respondent. 3.In all the petitions, it is averred that on 26.06.2005 at about 10.30 p.m, on Madurai-Dindigul main road near Premier Mills, the accident in question has happened. Prior to accident, the injured petitioners and deceased have travelled in santro car bearing Regn.No.TN-57-H-6683 from south to north. At that time, the lorry bearing registration No.TN-41-C- 0675 has been driven from opposite direction and the same belongs to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent. The driver of the first respondent has driven the same in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the said santro car and thereby caused accident. Due to accident, four inmates of the santro car have passed away and two inmates have sustained injuries. Under the said circumstances, these petitions have been filed for getting compensation as claimed in each petition. 4.In the counter filed on the side of the second respondent, it is averred that it is false to contend that the accident has happened due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent. The driver of the first respondent, on seeing negligence on the part of the driver of santro car, has stopped the lorry on left side. But the driver of the santro car has dashed against the lorry and thereby invited accident. Since accident has happened only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the santro car, the second respondent is not liable to pay compensations to the petitioners. 5.On the basis of the available evidence on record, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,00,000/- in M.C.O.P.No.1119 of 2005, Rs.3,68,000/- in M.C.O.P.No.1120 of 2005, Rs.1,68,000/- in M.C.O.P.No.1121 of 2005, Rs.1,98,000/- in M.C.O.P.No.1122 of 2005, Rs.1,04,000/- each in M.C.O.P.Nos.1155 and 1156 of 2005. Against the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 quantum and also liability fixed upon the second respondent, these civil miscellaneous appeals have been preferred. 6.Before contemplating the rival submissions made on either side, the court has to narrate the following admitted facts. The accident in question has happened on 26.06.2005 at about 10.30 p.m on Madurai-Dindigul main road near Premier Mills. In the accident, the santro car bearing registration No.TN-57-H-6683 and the lorry bearing registration No.TN-41-C-0675 are involved. The said santro car has been driven from south to north and the said lorry has been driven from north to south. In the accident, four inmates of the santro car have passed away and two inmates have sustained grievous injuries. 7.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, after considering the available evidence on record, has come to a definite conclusion to the effect that the entire accident has happened only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry which results in fixing liability upon the second respondent/appellant herein. 8.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/2nd respondent has attempted to set aside the liability fixed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal as well as quantum of compensations on the following grounds. a)From Ex.R.1-rough sketch, it is easily discernible that the lorry of the first respondent has been stopped on the extreme left side of the road and only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the santro car, the accident in question has happened and therefore the second respondent is not liable to pay compensations. b)The alleged eye witnesses cum injured witnesses have been examined as P.Ws.3 and 4 and their specific evidence is that the entire accident has happened due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent, whereas P.W.3 has been examined as one of the witnesses in criminal court, wherein, she has given contra evidence. On the basis of contra evidence given by her in criminal court, the court can easily come to a conclusion that the entire accident has happened only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the santro car. c)In M.C.O.P.No.1119 of 2005, a single claimant is available. Under the said circumstances, 50% deduction can be adopted and likewise in M.C.O.P.Nos.1121 and 1122 of 2005, the same method can be adopted. 9.In order to controvert the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/2nd respondent, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants has befittingly argued that in the present petitions, the specific contention of the petitioners is that the entire accident has happened due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent. Even though a complete denial has been made on the side of the appellant/2nd respondent with regard to manner of accident put forth on the side of the petitioners, no attempt has been made so as to examine the driver of the first respondent. But on the other hand, on the side of the petitioners, replete evidence is available so as to prove the alleged negligence on the part of the driver of the first respondent and the tribunal has clearly come to the conclusion that the entire accident has happened only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 first respondent and therefore, the argument advanced on the side of the appellant with regard to manner of accident cannot be accepted and further the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, after considering the age of the deceased, has rightly awarded compensation as mentioned in respective awards and therefore the entire argument advanced on the side of the appellant/2nd respondent is liable to be eschewed. 10.As stated earlier, the accident in question has happened on 26.06.2005 at about 10.30 p.m on Madurai-Dindigul main road near Premier Mills. In the accident, two vehicles are involved. The vehicle bearing registration No.TN-57-H-6883 has been driven from south to north and the vehicle bearing registration No.TN-41-C-0675 has been driven from north to south. 11.In all the petitions, it has been specifically averred that the entire accident has happened only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent. In the counter filed on the side of the second respondent, a specific stand has been taken to the effect that on seeing rash and negligent driving of the driver of the santro car, the driver of the first respondent has stopped the vehicle on the extreme left side of the road. But the driver of the santro car has dashed the same against the lorry which has been stopped and therefore the second respondent is not liable to pay compensation. 12.As pointed out earlier, in the accident, four inmates of the car have passed away and two inmates have sustained grievous injuries who are nothing but the petitioners in M.C.O.P.Nos.1155 and 1156 of 2005. Both of them have been examined as P.Ws.3 and 4 and their specific evidence is that the entire accident has happened only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent. Of course, it is true that a definite stand has been taken on the side of the second respondent to the effect that the entire accident has happened only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the santro car. Even though a specific stand has been taken on the side of the second respondent, in order to controvert or disprove the evidence given by P.Ws.3 and 4, no evidence has been let in on the side of the second respondent. If really such accident has happened only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the santro car, definitely the second respondent would have examined the driver of the first respondent. In the instant case, as taunted earlier, no attempt has been made so as to controvert the available evidence on record with regard to manner as well as factum of accident. Since even an iota of evidence is not available on the side of the appellant/2nd respondent, it is highly impossible on the part of the court to accept the stand taken on the side of the appellant/2nd respondent. Even at the risk of repetition, the Court would like to point out that in the present petitions, replete evidence is available on the side of the petitioners so as to prove that the entire accident has happened only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent. Therefore, the first and foremost limb of argument advanced on the side of the appellant/2nd respondent is sans merit. 13.The second attack made on the side of the appellant/2nd respondent is that P.W.3, viz., Visalakshi has been examined as one of the witnesses in criminal proceedings, wherein, she has given a contra evidence and on that basis, the court can easily come to a conclusion that the entire accident has happened due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the santro car. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5 14.It is an everlasting principle of law that a finding given by a Criminal Court is not at all binding upon the civil forum and further in the present petitions, as stated in many places, replete as well as trustworthy evidence is available so as to prove the factum as well as manner of accident. Under the said circumstances, the second attack made on the side of the appellant/2nd respondent also goes out without merit. 15.The third attack made on the side of the appellant/2nd respondent is that in M.C.O.P.Nos.1119, 1121 and 1122 of 2005, 50% deduction must be made and therefore the quantum of compensations fixed therein are erroneous. 16.In M.C.O.P.No.1119 of 2005, it is clearly mentioned that the age of the deceased is 46 and he served as a Bank Manager and thereby drawn monthly salary of Rs.18,000/-. After deducting 1/3rd, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has fixed Rs.12,000/- per mensum. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has adopted 14 multiplier. Since the deceased is aged about 46 only, 13 multiplier can be adopted and in that way, it comes to Rs.18,72,000/-. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has awarded some amounts towards other heads. Since the amount calculated by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is above the amount claimed in the petition, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,00,000/- as restricted on the side of the petitioner. Under the said circumstances, the deduction of 50% does not arise. In M.C.O.P.No.1121 of 2005, the deceased is nothing but a minor. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has adopted Rs.15,000/- as yearly income. Likewise in M.C.O.P.No.1122 of 2005, the deceased is aged about 21, wherein also the method of notional yearly income has been adopted. Since in M.C.O.P.Nos.1121 and 1122 of 2005, notional yearly income has been adopted, deduction of 50% does not arise. 17.In M.C.O.P.Nos.1155 and 1156 of 2005, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,04,000/- on the basis of the fractures sustained by the petitioners and also disability. Considering the fact that the petitioners found in M.C.O.P.Nos.1155 and 1156 of 2006 have sustained three fractures and also sustained 58% permanent disability, the quantum of compensation fixed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in M.C.O.P.Nos.1155 and 1156 of 2005 is perfectly correct and the same need not be interfered with. 18.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/2nd respondent has advanced a residual argument stating that in Ex.R.1, it is clearly mentioned that the entire accident has happened due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the santro car and for the purpose of proving the same, the entire awards passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal are liable to be set aside and all the petitions are liable to be remitted to the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. 19.In the instant petitions, on the side of the petitioners, enormous evidence is available so as to prove the factum as well as manner of accident. Since enormous evidence is available so as to prove the factum as well as manner of accident on the side of the petitioners, the residual argument advanced on the side of the appellant/2nd respondent cannot be accepted and altogether, these civil miscellaneous appeals deserve dismissal. 20.In fine, these civil miscellaneous appeals deserve dismissal and accordingly are dismissed without costs. Consequently, connected https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6 M.P.Nos.1, 1, 1, 1, 1 & 1 of 2011 and 2, 2, 2, 2, 2 & 2 of 2011 are also dismissed and the common award passed in M.C.O.P.Nos.1119, 1120, 1121, 1122, 1155 and 1156 of 2005 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Principal District Court, Dindigul is confirmed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Writs) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(C.S) To The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Principal District Judge, Dindigul. + 6 Ccs to MR.V.R.Subramaniam, Advocate, Sr.No.22471 + 6 Ccs to MR.P.Sathish Murugan, Advocate, Sr.No.22541 to 22546 vs C.M.A.(MD).Nos.379 to 384 of 2011 12.07.2011 TR : 10.08.2011: 6P/14C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/