1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13.07.2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.388 of 2011 A.Valliammal .. Appellant/Petitioner Vs. 1.M/s.Chitra Travels, No.3/320, Gandhi Nagar, Gandhipuram, Udumalpet, Tiruppur District. 2.The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd., Udumalpet, Tiruppur District. .. Respondents/Respondents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 19.06.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.No.420 of 2002 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Sub Court, Palani. For Appellant .. Mr.D.Venkatesh For Respondents .. No appearance JUDGMENT This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been directed against the award dated 19.06.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.No.420 of 2002 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Sub Court, Palani. 2. The appellant herein as petitioner has filed M.C.O.P.No.420 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal praying to pass an award of Rs.2,00,000/- by way of compensation, wherein the present respondents have been shown as respondents. 3. In the petition, it is averred that on 07.07.2002 at about 03.30 p.m., the petitioner has walked in front of City Bakery, Neikkarappatti Village. At that time, the driver of the first respondent has driven the bus bearing Registration No.TN-41-H-9299 in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two wheeler bearing Registration No.TAA-1869 and the same has dashed against the petitioner and due to accident, the petitioner has sustained multiple injuries and subsequently she has been taken to hospital. Under the said circumstances, the present petition has been filed for getting compensation. 4. In the counter filed on the side of the second respondent, it is averred that the accident has not happened due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent and further the owner of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 the two wheeler has not been impleaded and therefore the present petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary party and altogether the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. On the basis of the rival evidence adduced on either side, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.25,000/- on the ground of no fault liability against the respondents 1 and 2. The award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is being challenged in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal at the instance of the petitioner as appellant. 6. Even though, the respondents have been served with the summons, appearance has not been made. Under the said circumstances, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of on merits on the basis of the contention urged on the side of the appellant/petitioner. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner has contended that the specific case of the appellant/petitioner is that the entire accident has happened only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal after considering the available evidence on record has come to the conclusion that the accident has happened only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent, but the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has erroneously awarded compensation on the basis of no fault liability and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has simply come to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to get compensation on the basis of no fault liability on the ground that there is a vital contradiction in between the evidence given by the petitioner (P.W.1) and P.W.2 and therefore the conclusion arrived at by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal with regard to no fault liability is liable to be set aside. 8. As stated on the side of the appellant/ petitioner, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has framed a point as to whether the accident has happened due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent. With regard to the said aspect, a detailed discussion has been made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and ultimately found that the entire accident has happened only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent. 9. The petitioner has been examined as P.W.1 and the person, who has driven the two wheeler has been examined as P.W.2. In between the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, a slight variation is found with regard to factum of accident. The specific stand taken on the side of the appellant/petitioner is that the entire accident has happened only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has also given a specific finding to the effect that the driver of the first respondent is solely responsible for the accident. But the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, as stated earlier, has come to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to get Rs.25,000/- on the basis of no fault liability on the ground of minor discrepancies in between the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. The reason given by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for awarding compensation on the basis of no fault liability is totally incorrect, after giving a specific finding to the effect that the entire accident has happened only https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent. Therefore the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is liable to be set aside and the matter is liable to be remitted to the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. 10. In fine, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed without costs and the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.420 of 2002 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Sub Court, Palani is set aside and M.C.O.P.No.420 of 2002 is remitted to the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Sub Court, Palani. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Sub Court, Palani is directed to pass suitable award on the basis of available evidence on record. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Sub Court, Palani is further directed to dispose of M.C.O.P.No.420 of 2002 before the end of October, 2011 and report the same to the Registry without fail. smn Sd/- Assistant Registrar[CO] /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Subordiante Judge, Palani. Copy to: The Section Officer, VR. Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1 cc to Mr.D.Venkatesh, Advocate SR.No.22721. C.M.A(MD)No.388 of 2011 Dated:13.07.2011 3P/4C RPB 23.08.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/