1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 22.09.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM C.M.A(MD)Nos.208 & 209 of 2011 1.Ayyammal 2.Chandrasekar 3.Senthilkumar 4.Kavitha .. Appellants/Petitioners in CMA No.208 of 2011 Ameer John .. Appellant/Petitioner in CMA No.209 of 2011 Vs. 1.R.C.Veeraiyan 2.The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd South Main Street Thanjavur, through its Branch Manager .. Respondents/Respondents in both CMAs. Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the common award dated 24.04.2006 passed in MCOP Nos.881 and 857 of 2004 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Principal District Court, Thanjavur. For Appellants : Mr.P.Subbaraj (both CMAs) For R – 1 : Mr.S.Visvalingam (both CMAs) For R – 2 : No appearance (both CMAs) COMMON JUDGMENT These Civil Miscellaneous Appease have been directed against the common award dated 24.04.2006 passed in MCOP Nos.881 and 857 of 2004 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Principal District Court, Thanjavur. 2. The appellants in CMA No.208 of 2011 as petitioners have filed MCOP No.881 of 2004 and the appellant in CMA No.209 of 2011 as petitioner has filed MCOP No.857 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal praying to pass awards for the amounts mentioned therein, wherein the present respondents have been shown as respondents. 3. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal after considering the available evidence on record has given a specific finding to the effect that the entire accident has happened only due to rash and negligent driving of the rider of motor cycle which involved in the accident and by way of invoking section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 passed the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 awards in question. With regard to awards passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been preferred at the instance of the petitioners as appellants. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/petitioners has repeatedly contended that the accident has happened on 10.06.2004 and prior to accident the petitioner in MCOP No.857 of 2004 has driven the two wheeler in front of the lorry which belongs to the first respondent and the same has been driven by RW1, Udayakumar and only due to his rash and negligent driving, the entire accident has happened and in order to prove the factum as well as nature of accident, the petitioner in MCOP No.857 of 2004 has been examined as PW2 and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal without considering the available evidence on record on the side of the petitioners has erroneously found that the entire accident has happened only due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner in MCOP No.857 of 2004 and therefore the conclusion arrived at by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and also passing of awards under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 are totally erroneous and the same are liable to be set aside. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent has contended that in the instant case, entire accident has happened only due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner in MCOP No.857 of 2004 and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal after considering the documents filed on the side of the petitioners has rightly come to the conclusion that the driver of the first respondent is not at all responsible for the accident and therefore, the conclusion arrived at by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal with regard to cause of accident and also passing of awards are perfectly correct and the same do not warrant interference. 6. It is an admitted fact that the accident has happened on 10.06.2004. The main contention urged on the side of the petitioners is that prior to accident the petitioner in MCOP No.857 of 2004 has driven a motor cycle in front of the lorry which belongs to the first respondent which has been driven by one Udayakumar who has been examined as RW1 and only due to his rash and negligent driving the entire accident has happened. 7. The petitioner in MCOP No.857 of 2004 has been examined as PW2 and his specific evidence is that he has driven the motor cycle in front of the lorry which belongs to the first respondent and only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent, entire accident has happened. Likewise, the driver of the first respondent has been examined as RW1 and his specific evidence is that due to rash and negligent driving of the rider of the motor cycle the same has touched the left rear wheel of the lorry and due to that accident has happened. Barring the evidence adduced by PW2 and RW1 the Court is having documentary evidence for the purpose of analysing the rival contentions put forth on either side with regard to cause of accident. Ex.P4, a report given by the concerned Motor Vehicles Inspector relating to the lorry bearing Registration No.TAN-3596, wherein it has been clearly stated that the rear left wheel mudguard got damaged. Ex.P6 is also a report given by the concerned Motor Vehicles Inspector with regard to two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-49-4910 wherein it has been clearly https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 stated that front body sheet got completely damaged. Therefore, from Exs.P4 and P6, the Court can easily come to a conclusion that the entire accident has happened as narrated by RW1. If really such accident has happened as alleged on the side of the petitioners, definitely rear left side wheel mudguard of the lorry would not have sustained damage. Therefore it is very clear that the entire accident has happened only due to rash and negligent driving of the rider of the petitioner found in MCOP No.857 of 2004. 8. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal after considering the available evidence on record has rightly found that the entire accident has happened only due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner found in MCOP No.857 of 2004 and also rightly invoked section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In view of the discussion made earlier, this Court has not found any error in the common award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and altogether the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeals deserve dismissal. 9. In fine, these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals deserve dismissal and accordingly are dismissed without cost. The common award passed in MCOP Nos.881 and 857 of 2004 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Principal District Court, Thanjavur is confirmed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AE) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/ Principal District Judge, Thanjavur +1cc to Mr.P.Subbaraj, Advocate, SR.No.32685 mj GH : 29.10.2011 : 3p/3c C.M.A(MD)Nos.208 & 209 of 2011 22.09.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/