1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18.07.2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.824 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.2 of 2011 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., rep. by its Branch Manager, D.O.MVPA, T.R.Tower, Stadium Road, Kerala. .. Appellant Vs. 1.Palanisami 2.Vellathayee 3.T.C.Chacko .. Respondents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 19.07.2010 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1037 of 2008 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Principal District Court, Tiruchirappalli. For Appellant .. Mr.K.Bhaskaran For Respondents .. Mr.N.Sudhagar Nagaraj 1 and 2 For Respondent .. No appearance No.3 JUDGMENT The impugned award dated 19.07.2010 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1037 of 2008 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Principal District Court, Tiruchirappalli is being challenged in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 2. The respondents 1 and 2 herein as petitioners have filed M.C.O.P.No.1037 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal praying to pass an award of Rs.10,00,000/- by way of compensation, wherein the present appellant has been shown as second respondent. 3. It is stated in the petition that on 02.03.2008 during night hours, the deceased Sureshkumar and one more person have travelled as pillion riders on a motor cycle bearing Registration No.TN-57-L-3922 on Dindigul-Tiruchirappalli By-pass Road. At about 10.30 p.m., the driver of the first respondent has driven Toyota Qualis car bearing Registration No.KL-03-F- 6232 from opposite direction in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle, on which the deceased has https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 travelled. Due to accident, the deceased has had fatal injuries, which resulted his death. The deceased has earned Rs.150/- per day. Since the accident has happened only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent and the vehicle which caused the accident has been insured with the second respondent, the present petition has been filed for getting compensation. 4. In the counter filed on the side of the first respondent it is averred that the accident has not happened due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent. The driver of the motor cycle is solely responsible for the accident and therefore the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. In the counter filed on the side of the second respondent it is stated that the accident has happened only due to rash and negligent driving of the person, who has driven the motor cycle. It is false to say that the accident has happened only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent and there is no merit in the petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. 6. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal after considering the available contra evidence has fixed liability of the car as well as motor cycle on the basis of 80:20 ratio and ultimately fixed compensation of Rs.2,46,400/-. Against the quantum of compensation and also ratio fixed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred at the instance of the second respondent as appellant. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/second respondent has not touched the factum and also manner of accident. He simply argued that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has come to a conclusion that the motor cycle has been driven from south to north and Toyota Qualis car has been driven from north to south and it has sustained damage only on its left side and if really such accident has takenplace as stated on the side of the petitioners, definitely the said car would have sustained damage only on its left side and under the said circumstances, the entire accident has happened only due to rash and negligent driving of the person, who has driven the motor cycle and therefore the ratio fixed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is totally erroneous and the entire award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is liable to be modified. 8. Of course, it is true that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has stated that the Toyota Qualis car has sustained damage on its left side. Under the said circumstances, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has fixed liability upon the car as well as motor cycle on the basis of the ratio of 80:20. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/second respondent has contended that the entire accident has happened only due to rash and negligent driving of the person, who has driven the motor cycle. Even though a specific stand has been taken to the effect that the entire accident has happened only due to rash and negligent driving of the person, who has driven the motor cycle, no acceptable evidence has been forthcoming on the side of the second respondent. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on the basis of the damage sustained on the left side https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 of the Toyota Qualis car, has fixed liability on the basis of 80:20 ratio. Since on the side of the respondents, no evidence has been adduced so as to prove that the entire accident has happened only due to rash and negligent driving of the person, who has driven the motor cycle, it is very clear that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has rightly fixed liability upon the Toyota Qualis Car as well as motor cycle on the basis of ratio mentioned supra. In view of the discussion made earlier, the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/second respondent cannot be accepted. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/second respondent has not touched the quantum of compensation and therefore 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.1037 of 2008 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Principal District Court, Tiruchirappalli is confirmed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Crl.SIde) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Principal District Court, Tiruchirappalli. smn rl/2c – 28.7.2011 C.M.A(MD)No.824 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.2 of 2011 18.07.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/