1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11.08.2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.817 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1 of 2011 The Branch Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd., 77/68, South Car Street, Sivakasi. .. Appellant /2nd Respondent Vs. 1.Paranjothi 2.Irulappa Raja 3.Jegannath 4.Jegathsingh Prabhu 5.Mariselvam 6.Vanathi ..Respondents 1 to 6/Claimants 7.Gunasekaran .. 7th Respondent /1st Respondent Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 11.08.2010 passed in M.C.O.P.No.42 of 2008 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Sub Court, Sivakasi. For Appellant .. Mr.B.Vijay Karthikeyan For Respondents .. Mr.S.Subbiah 1 to 6 For Respondent .. Mr.N.Dilip Kumar No.7 JUDGMENT This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been directed against the award dated 11.08.2010 passed in M.C.O.P.No.42 of 2008 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Sub Court, Sivakasi. 2. The respondents 1 to 6 herein as petitioners have filed M.C.O.P.No.42 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal praying to pass an award of Rs.8,00,000/- by way of compensation, wherein the present appellant has been shown as second respondent. 3. It is averred in the petition that on 15.04.2008 at about 08.30 a.m., the deceased has driven his bicycle from Menaka Maternity Hospital for the purpose of getting tea. On Sivakasi – Thiruthangal Road, the first respondent has driven his two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-67-R-0474 in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the cycle, on which the deceased has travelled. Due to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 accident, the deceased has sustained multiple injuries and consequently passed away. The vehicle, which caused the accident has been insured with the second respondent. The deceased has earned Rs.3,000/- per mensum and he also used to get yearly bonus. Under the said circumstances, 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 first respondent. The deceased himself has invited in 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 averred that the vehicle of the first respondent has not at all involved in the accident and the same has been mentioned in the petition for the purpose of getting 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.4,30,500/- by way of compensation. With regard to liability, 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 attacked the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.42 of 2008 mainly on the ground that the two wheeler of the first respondent has been insured with the second respondent, but the same has not involved in the accident and after accident an entry has been made in the Register of Fire Service Call, wherein different number has been given and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal without considering the vital document filed on the side of the witness, has erroneously found that the vehicle of the first respondent has involved in the accident and therefore the entire award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is incorrect and the same is liable to be set aside. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 6/petitioners has contended that in the instant case, the first respondent himself has clearly admitted that his vehicle has involved in the accident and further in the First Information Report the involvement of the vehicle of the first respondent has been mentioned and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal after considering the available evidence on record has rightly found that the vehicle of the first respondent has involved in the accident and therefore the contention putforth on the side of the appellant/second respondent is liable to be rejected. 9. On the basis of the rival submissions made on either side, the Court has to look into as to whether the vehicle of the first respondent has involved in the accident? https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 10. In fact, this Court has perused the counter filed on the side of the first respondent, wherein it has been explicitly stated that the vehicle of the first respondent has involved in the accident, but the entire accident has happened only due to negligence on the part of the deceased. It is true that Ex.X.1 has been filed. Ex.X.1 is nothing, but a Register of Fire Service Call, wherein different registration number has been mentioned. Considering the fact that the first respondent himself has clearly admitted in the counter to the effect that his vehicle has involved in the accident, the Court cannot come to a conclusion that his vehicle has not at all involved in the accident on the basis of the entry found in Ex.X.1. 11. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal after evaluating the evidence properly has rightly found that the vehicle of the first respondent has involved in the accident. In view of the discussion made earlier, this Court has not found any force in the contention urged on the side of the appellant/second respondent. 12. 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. 13. In fine, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed without costs and the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.42 of 2008 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Sub Court, Sivakasi is confirmed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(W) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Sub Court, Sivakasi.(with Records if any) +1cc to Mr.B.Vijay Karthikeyan, Advocate, SR.No.27204 +1cc to Mr.Subbiah, Advocate, Sr.No.27305 +1cc to Mr.N.Dilip Kumar, Advocate, Sr.No.27377 C.M.A(MD)No.817 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 11.08.2011 smn/SMA/9.9.2011/5C/3P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/