1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 14.09.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM C.M.A(MD)No.818 of 2011 and MP(MD)No.1 of 2011 New India Assurance Co.Ltd through its Branch Manager .. Appellant/2nd Respondent Kovilpatti Vs. 1.Maheswari 2.Chellappa .. Respondents 1 and 2 / Petitioners 3.Ganesan .. Respondent NO. 3 /1st Respondent Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 30.09.2010 passed in MCOP No.20 of 2008 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Principal District Court, Tiruelveli. For Appellant : Mr.A.K.Baskara Pandian For RR – 1 and 2 : No appearance For Respondent 3 : No appearance JUDGMENT This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been directed against the award dated 30.09.2010 passed in MCOP No.20 of 2008 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Principal District Court, Tiruelveli. 2. The respondents 1 & 2 herein as petitioners have filed MCOP No.20 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal praying to pass an award for the amount mentioned therein, wherein the present appellant and third respondent have been shown as respondents. 3. It is stated in the petition that the Petitioners are the parents of the deceased by name Murugan @ Murugiah. On 07.08.2007 the deceased has returned to home from his work place by way of riding a bicycle on the left side of Sankarankoil-Puliyangudi main road. At that time the driver of the first respondent has driven the tractor bearing Registration No.TN-76-Z- 4901 in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased and due to accident he sustained injuries and subsequently admitted in TVMC hospital, Palayamkottai, wherein he succumbed to injuries. The vehicle which caused accident has been insured with the second respondent. Under the said circumstances the present petition has been filed for getting compensation as claimed therein. 4. In the counter filed on the side of the second respondent it is stated that the vehicle of the first respondent has not been insured with the second respondent at the time of accident. It is false to say that the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 accident has happened 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 dismissal. 5. In the additional counter filed on the side of the second respondent it is averred that the vehicle of the first respondent has been insured with the second respondent from 24.11.2006 to 23.11.2007. The accident has happened on 07.08.2007. The vehicle of the first respondent has not at all involved in the accident and the present petition has been filed fraudulently by way of introducing the tractor bearing Registration No.TN-76-Z-4901 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 passed an award of Rs.2,17,500/- and fixed liability either jointly or severally upon the respondents 1 and 2. With regard to liability fixed upon the second respondent, 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 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on the following grounds: (a) The specific stand taken on the side of the appellant/second respondent is that the tractor of the first respondent has not at all involved in the accident and on the side of the Petitioners no positive evidence has been let in and in the criminal case instituted against the driver of the first respondent acquitted Judgment has been passed. But the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal without considering the stand taken on the side of the appellant/second respondent has erroneously fixed liability upon the respondents and therefore the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is liable to be set aside. (b) The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal without considering the available evidence on record has erroneously passed the award in question to the tune of Rs.2,17,500/- and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. 8. The definite stand taken on the side of the Petitioners is that the accident has happened on 07.08.2007 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent. It is an admitted fact that the first respondent is the owner of the tractor bearing Registration No.TN-76- Z-4901. Even though it has been stated on the side of the appellant/second respondent that the tractor of the first respondent has not at all involved in the alleged accident, the first respondent has remained ex parte and he has not been examined on the side of the appellant/second respondent. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/second respondent has advanced the entire argument mainly on the basis of investigation report filed on its side as well as the criminal proceedings instituted against the driver of the first respondent. It is true that the appellant / second respondent has appointed a private investigator and he filed a report after conducting alleged investigation, wherein it is stated that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 the vehicle of the first respondent has not at all involved. In the criminal proceedings also the driver of the first respondent has got acquittal. The investigation report as well as Judgment passed in criminal proceedings are not at all binding upon the Petitioners. On the side of the Petitioners acceptable evidence is available so as to prove that the vehicle of the first respondent has involved in the accident. In order to disprove the same no contra evidence is available except the evidence mentioned supra. The only person who is competent to support the stand taken on the side of the appellant/second respondent is the first respondent. But he has not been examined. Under the said circumstances, the first attack made on the side of the appellant/second respondent cannot be accepted. 10. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has fixed a compensation of Rs.2,17,500/-. It is an admitted fact that the deceased has passed away as a bachelor. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has fixed monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-. After making 50% deduction the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs.2,17,500/- by way of compensation. In fact this Court has perused the method adopted by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and ultimately found that no flaw is in existence and altogether the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal deserves to be dismissed. 11. In fine, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed without cost. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed and the award passed in MCOP No.20 of 2008 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Principal District Court, Tiruelveli is confirmed. However, the respondents 1 & 2/petitioners are entitled to get only 7.5% interest. SD ASST REGISTRAR ( AS ) /TRUE COPY/ SUB ASST REGISTRAR mj To The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/ Principal District Judge, Tiruelveli 1CC TO MR. M. VALLINAYGAM, ADVOCATE, SR: 31511: DM:2011:SEPTEMBER:21: C.M.A(MD)No.818 of 2011 AND MP(MD)No. 1 of 2011 14.09.2011 3p:3c:; https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/