Vs.
1.Minor Muthumani (Minor 1st respondent through his father and guardian of Murugan) ...1st Respondent/Petitioner
2. Naganathan ...2nd Respondent/1st Respondent
3.Mariya Arul (2nd and 3rd respondents remained exparte before the Lower Court) ...3rd Respondent/2nd Respondent PRAYER:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award made in M.C.O.P.No.21 of 2008, dated 21.11.2009, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Sub Judge, Devakottai.
PRAYER:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award made in M.C.O.P.No.54 of 2007, dated 02.09.2008, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Sub Judge, Devakottai.
For Appellant :Mr.K.Bhaskaran For Respondents:Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan for R.1 :COMMON JUDGMENT Both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been filed by the appellant Insurance Company against the award made in M.C.O.P.No.21 of 2008, dated 21.11.2009 and M.C.O.P.No.54 of 2007, dated 02.09.2008, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Sub Judge, Devakottai.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
Both claims have been arisen out of an accident took place on 24.05.2007. The claimants/injured in both the petitions are father and minor son. While injured claimants were travelling in a two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-55-L-4926 in Devakottai-Thiruvadanai main road and when they were entering into a petrol bunk, a lorry bearing Registration No.TN-57- 4977 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two wheeler, due to the said impact, the claimants were sustained injuries. Hence, they filed a claim petition separately in M.C.O.P.No.21 of 2008 and M.C.O.P.No.54 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Sub Judge, Devakottai claiming a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- respectively.
3. Before the Tribunal, in M.C.O.P.No.21 of 2008, on the side of the claimant, the injured claimant himself was examined himself as P.W.1 and six documents viz., Exs.P.1 to P.6 were marked and on the side of the respondent, three witnesses viz., R.W.1 to R.W.3 were examined and three documents viz., Exs.R.1 to R.3 were marked and in M.C.O.P.No.54 of 2007, one witness viz., P.W.1 was examined and three documents viz., Exs.P.1 to P.3 were examined and on the side of the respondent, two witnesses viz., R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and two documents viz., Exs.R.1 and R.2 were marked.
4.The Tribunal, after considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence and arguments of the counsel appearing on either side and also appreciating the evidence on record, held that the accident occurred only, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and directed the appellant/Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.1,78,600/- and Rs.27,500/- respectively to the claimants in M.C.O.P.No.21 of 2008 and M.C.O.P.No.54 of 2007 respectively.
5. Against which, the appellant/Insurance Company filed the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeals.
6. The learned Counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company would file this appeal making on the ground that though the Tribunal has found that the Insurance Company had to pay the compensation amount to the injured claimants in both the petitions and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle, the same was not incorporated in the award.
7. The learned counsel for the injured claimants would submit that based on the available oral and documentary evidences, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, which was insured with the appellant Insurance Company and hence, directed the Insurance Company to pay compensation. Hence, he prays for dismissal of this appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides and perused the materials available on record.
9. In view of the submission made by the appellant Insurance Company, it is relevant to extract the finding of the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.54 of 2007, which is as follows:
?10. vjph;kDjhuh; jug;G rhl;rpfs; 1> 2> 3 MfpNahh; tpgj;J thfd Xl;LdUf;F Xl;Ldh; chpkk; ,y;yhj egUf;F thfdj;ij nfhLj;jjhy; ghyprpf;F tpNuhjkhf nray;gl;lhh; vd;W nghUs; nfhs;s Ntz;Lnkd;Wk;> mjdhy; ghyprpf;F tpNuhjkhf nray;gl;ljhy; e\;l<L nfhLf;f flikg;gl;lth; my;y vd;W thjpl;lhYk;> 2007 V.rp.N[.2760 vd;w Kd; jPhg;gpy; xl;Ldh; chpkk; ,y;iy vd;gjhy; Xl;Ldh; ftdf;FiwthfTk; m[hf;fpuijahfTk; Xl;bdhh; vd;W mDkhdpf;f Kfhe;juk; ,y;iy vd;Wk;> xl;Ldh; chpkk; ,y;yhtpl;lhy; ,og;gPl;Lj; njhifia fhg;gPl;Lf; fofk; nrYj;jp tpl;L mjd; chpikahshplk; t#y; nra;J nfhs;sNtz;Lnkd;W Kd; jPh;g;G kw;Wk; Kbthd rl;lj;jpy; Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sJ. vdNt 3-k; vjph;kDjhuh; epWtdk; kDjhuUf;F ,og;gPl;Lj; njhif nrYj;j flikg;gl;lJ vd;W ,e;j gpur;ridf;F jPh;T fhzg;gLfpwJ.?
The Tribunal has also held in M.C.O.P.No.21 of 2008 as follows:
9.tpgj;jpd; NghJ 1-tJ vjph;kDjhuUf;F Kiwahd Xl;Ldh; chpkk; ngh;kpl; ,y;iy vd;Wk;> ghyprp epge;jidfis kPwpAs;sjhy;> 2-tJ vjph;kDjhuh; jhd; ,og;gPl;Lj;njhif nrYj;j flikg;gl;lth; vd;W 3-tJ vjph;kDjhuh; jug;gpy; thjplg;gl;lJ. mjid nghWj;J Ma;T nra;fpw NghJ v.k.rh.M.1> 2 gb ehfehjDf;F ,yF uf thfdk; Xl;Ltjw;F Xl;Ldh; chpkk; ,Ug;gjhy; Xl;Ldh; chpkNk ,y;iy vd;Wk; mjdhy; ghyprp tpjpKiwfis kPwp tpl;ljhfTk; Fwpg;gpl;l 3-k; vjph;kDjhuh; jug;G thjk; fUj;jpy; nfhs;sg; glhjjhy; ,og;gPl;Lj;njhifia 1 Kjy; 3 vjph;kDjhuh;fs; nfhLf;ff;flikg;gl;lth;fs; vd;W jPh;T fhzg;gLfpwJ.
10. In view of the above, the Tribunal ordered payment of the compensation amount to the injured claimants however failed to grant the liberty to the appellant Insurance Company to recover the compensation amount from the owner of the vehicle. This resulted in the filing of the appeal for the limited relief. Hence, the finding of the Tribunal is modified to the effect that the Insurance Company is directed to pay the compensation amount as arrived by the Tribunal in both claims and after making payment, the Insurance Company is at liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle as per the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Nanjappan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Others, reported in 2003(1)L.W. 77.
11. In the result, both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are allowed as indicated above. The appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire award amount with accrued interests and costs in both the claim petitions, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not already deposited and on such deposit being made, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the same, with accrued interests and costs without filing any formal petition before the Tribunal. No Costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. The appellant/Insurance Company is at liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle as mentioned supra.
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Sub Judge, Devakottai.
2.The Record Keeper, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
.