1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 01.02.2017 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE CMA.No.2739 of 2008 1.V.Sundaramoorthy 2.The United India Insurance Company Ltd., Udumalpet. ... Appellants Vs. 1.Incent Rani 2.Deva Christina Rani (2nd respondent declared as major & 1st respondent discharged from guardianship of 2nd respondent vide order dated 3.1.2006 in CMP.No.18573 of 2005) 3.Benett Martin (3rd respondent declared as major & 1st respondent discharged from guardianship of 3rdd respondent vide order dated 3.2.2007 in CMP.No.10085 of 2006) 4.Moses 5.Yasammal 6.The New India Assurance Company Ltd., 289, Pollachi Road, Udumalaipet. ... Respondents Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 against the award and decree dated 15.12.2003 made in MCOP.No.367 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Judge, Udumalpet. For Appellant :Mr.S.Arun Kumar For Respondents :Mr.S.Gunalan [for R1 to R5] JUDGMENT In a road accident that took place on 27.8.1997 at about 8.00 a.m., a 2 motorcycle bearing registration No.TN33-Z-1819 belonging to the first appellant herein (first respondent before the Tribunal) and insured with the second appellant (second respondent before the Tribunal) had hit a scooter bearing registration No.TN41-B-2959, due to which the rider of the scooter was killed. Initially the injured was taken to a local Government hospital and owing to doctor's strike there, he was shunted from Udumalaipet then to Coimbatore and ultimately the victim of the accident met with his ultimate end. Seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-, his legal representatives approached the Tribunal against which they were awarded Rs.5,31,000/- payable with interest at 9% per annum. 2. The first claimant/the widow of the victim lodged a complaint with the police, based on which a case in Crime No.207 of 1997 was registered. In the trial that followed, this first respondent (before the Tribunal) was acquitted. During enquiry in the claim petition, both the complainant/widow and the first respondent/rider examined themselves respectively as PW.1 and RW.2. The Tribunal opted to rely on the testimony of PW.1 and held appellant/first respondent (before the Tribunal) was negligent in riding his motorcycle. In arriving at it, it rightly ignored the judgment acquitting the first respondent in the criminal case concerning this accident. 3.The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the entire accident had occasioned only due to the negligence of the victim, that his widow was not an eyewitness, and claimants have not chosen to examine 3 any of the eyewitnesses. It is an admitted case of the complainants that the victim had gone to drop his child in the school and after dropping the child, the accident had taken place. If that is so there can be any number of persons who might have witnessed the accident and none of them were examined. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimants submitted that neither PW.1 was tested during her examination as to how her husband's negligence has resulted in the accident nor the first respondent, RW.2 has explained how the accident had taken place. Even if it were to be presumed that P.W.1 was not an eyewitness, since the first respondent, the rider of the offending vehicle was a party to the accident, the facts as to how the accident took place was well within his knowledge and in the circumstances he is the best witness to speak about the manner in which the accident took place. He, however, was conveniently silent about it in his evidence. 5. Upon carefully weighing the rival submissions, I find merit in the submissions of the counsel for the claimants and I do not want to repeat the same as the submissions were pointed and already stated. 6.In the foregoing reasons, I find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed but without costs. The appellant and the insurer are directed to deposit the amount awarded by the Tribunal, less any amount already deposited within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this 4 order, whereupon the claimants would be free to withdraw the same forthwith. 01.02.2017 ds 5 N.SESHASAYEE, J. ds To 1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Udumalpet. 2.The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras. CMA.No.2739 of 2005 01.02.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in