1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 05.09.2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.900 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.3 of 2011 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. through its Branch Manager, P.P.K. Complex, South Street, Pudukkottai. .. Appellant/2nd Respondent Vs. 1.L.Seetha 2.Minor Thilagavathi 3.Minor Divya (Minor 2 and 3 respondents are represented by their mother and natural guardian viz., first respondent) 4.Chinnathal .. Respondents 1 to 4/Petitioners 5.M.Ramaiah .. Respondent No.5/1st Respondent Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 17.04.2009 passed in M.C.O.P.No.700 of 2003 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional District Court (Fast Track Court), Pudukkottai. For Appellant .. Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai For Respondents .. No appearance JUDGMENT The award dated 17.04.2009 passed in M.C.O.P.No.700 of 2003 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional District Court (Fast Track Court), Pudukkottai is being challenged in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 2. The respondents 1 to 4 herein as petitioners have filed M.C.O.P.No.700 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal praying to pass an award for the amount mentioned therein, wherein the present appellant and fifth respondent have been shown as respondents. 3. It is stated in the petition that the first petitioner is the wife of the deceased Lakshmanan. The petitioners 2 and 3 are their children. The fourth petitioner is the mother of the deceased. The tractor and trailer which involved in the accident belong to the first respondent and the same have been insured with the second respondent. On 03.06.2003, the tractor and trailer of the first respondent have been engaged for carrying sugar cane. At that time, the deceased and others https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 have served as coolies. The tractor and trailer driven by the driver of the first respondent have touched live wire and due to that the persons, who travelled on the trailer have got down. At that time, the deceased has received electrocution and consequently passed away. The deceased has earned Rs.4,500/- per mensum. Since the vehicles, which involved in the accident have been insured with the second respondent, the respondents are liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. 4. In the counter filed on the side of the first respondent, it is stated that the deceased and others have tried to set right the sugar cane load. At that time, the driver of the first respondent has moved the tractor and trailer and due to that accident has happened due to electrocution 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 second respondent, it is averred that the present petition has been filed purely on false information. The deceased is nothing, but a gratuitous passenger. Since the vehicles involved in the accident are nothing, but goods vehicles, due to accident the petitioners are not entitled to get compensation and there is no merit in the petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. 6. On the basis of the available evidence on record the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,05,000/- by way of compensation. Against the liability fixed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred at the instance of the second respondent as appellant. 7. 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 putforth on the side of the appellant/second respondent. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/second respondent has attacked the impugned award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on the following grounds: The accident has happened on 03.06.2003. The tractor and trailer of the first respondent have been engaged for carrying sugar cane and the deceased and others have served as coolies for loading and unloading sugar cane and after loading sugar cane, the deceased and others have travelled as gratuitous passengers on sugar cane and due to that electrocution has happened and subsequently death of the deceased has occurred and since the tractor is a goods vehicle, the deceased and others are not legally bound to travel on it. Under the said circumstances, the appellant/second respondent is not liable to pay compensation, but the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has failed to consider the above factual aspect and therefore the liability fixed upon the appellant/second respondent is liable to be set aside. 9. For considering the submission made on the side of the appellant/second respondent, the Court has to look into Ex.P.1, the complaint and also the evidence adduced on the side of the petitioners. The complaint alleged to have been given after accident has been marked as Ex.P.1, wherein it has been clearly stated that the deceased and others have travelled on the trailer after loading sugar cane and subsequently the same has been stopped due to electric shock and all the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 persons who travelled on the trailer have got down. At that time the deceased has sustained electrocution, which resulted his death. Therefore it goes without saying that the electrocution has not happened at the time of driving the tractor as well as trailer involved in the accident. On the basis of the factual aspects mentioned in Ex.P.1 and also on the basis of the available oral evidence, the Court can easily come to a conclusion that the accident has happened due to electrocution and that too after stopping the tractor and trailer. 10. It is an admitted fact that the tractor and trailer involved in the accident have been insured with the second respondent. On the basis of the aforesaid factual circumstances, the Court can very well fix the liability upon the appellant/second respondent. Therefore the contention urged on the side of the appellant/ second respondent cannot be accepted. 11. 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. 12. In fine, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed without costs and the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.700 of 2003 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional District Court (Fast Track Court), Pudukkottai is confirmed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (RTI) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar (C.S) To The Additional District Judge, The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Fast Track Court), Pudukkottai. C.M.A(MD)No.900 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.3 of 2011 05.09.2011 smn RJ/11.10.11 3p/2c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/