This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant against the award made in M.C.O.P. No.376 of 2013, dated 23.07.2014, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Special District Judge, Trichirappalli.
2. It is a case of fatal accident which took place on 16.03.2007 at about 03.00 a.m, near Periyariyal Pasarai, Siruganur.
3.It is the case of the claimants before the Tribunal that on the date of accident, the deceased namely Kaliyappan was travelling in a Taxi bearing Registration No.PY-01-B-8129, on Pandicherry - Trichy road, from North to South, near Periyariyal Pasarai, Siruganur, the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-30-Y-5775, drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Taxi and due to which, the deceased sustained several grievous injuries and died on the spot.
4.The claimants filed an application in M.A.C.O.P.No.376 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Special District Judge, Trichirappalli, seeking a sum of Rs.18,00,000/- as compensation.
5. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants, two witnesses viz., P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and six documents viz., Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6 were marked and on the side of respondents, no witness was examined and no document was marked.
6.The Tribunal, after considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidences and arguments of the counsel for the and claimants and respondents and also appreciating the evidence on record, held that the accident occurred, only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry and directed the first and second respondents to pay a sum of Rs.9,67,400/-, as compensation.
7. Against which, the appellant/Insurance Company has filed this present appeal. Though the present appeal has been filed on various grounds, at the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant restricted his argument only on the ground of negligence.
8. The learned Counsel for the respondents/claimants disputed the said contention and he would draw the attention of this Court to the findings of the Tribunal, to Paragraph No.8 and wherein it has been discussed as follows: ?,t;tof;fpy; gjpT nra;ag;gl;Ls;s Kjy; jfty; mwpf;ifahd Gfhiu fpuhk eph;thf mjpfhhp nfhLj;Js;shh; vd;gJ Nkw;fz;l Mtzj;jpy;,Ue;J njhpfpd;w epiyapy;> Nkw;fz;l fpuhk eph;thf mjpfhhp rk;gtj;ij Nehpy; ghh;j;j egh; ,y;iy vd;gjhy; Kjy; jfty; mwpf;ifapy; fhzg;gLk; tptuq;fs; ep&gpf;fg;gl;ljhf fUj ,ayhJ vd;W vjph;kDjhuh;fs; jug;gpy; thJiuf;fg;gl;L> 2010(2) Nkw;Nfhs; fhl;lg;gl;lJ. ,t;tof;fpy; Gfhiu nfhLj;Js;s fpuhk eph;thf mjpfhhp rhl;rpahf tprhhpf;fg;gltpy;iy. ,k;kDtpy; $wg;gl;Ls;s yhhp Xl;Leh; kPJ Fw;w tof;F gjpT nra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ vd;gJ njhpfpwJ.
Nkw;fz;lthW Fw;w tof;F gjpT nra;ag;gl;Ls;s epiyapy;> Nkw;fz;l yhhp Xl;Leh; mjpNtfkhfTk;> ftdf;FiwthfTk; Xl;b te;J tpgj;ij Vw;gLj;jpdhh; vd;gij vLj;Jf;fhl;Lk; tifapy;> k.rh.2d; rhl;rpaj;jpy; jFe;j tptuq;fs; vLj;Jiuf;fg;gl;Ls;s epiyapy;> kDjhuh; jug;gpy; $wg;gl;Ls;sgb Nkw;fz;l yhhp Xl;Leh; mjpNtfkhfTk;> ftdf;FiwthfTk;> Xl;b te;J tpgj;ij Vw;gLj;jpdhh; vd;gij ep&gpf;Fk; tifapy; ,e;ePjpkd;wj;jpd; Kd;G rk;gtj;ij Nehpy; ghh;j;j tifapy; rhl;rpak; mspf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ vd;W ,e;ePjpkd;wk; fUJfpwJ. tpgj;J njhlh;ghd Fw;w tof;F yhhp Xl;Leh; kPJ gjpT nra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ vd;gJ kWf;fg;gltpy;iy vd;gJ vjph;kDjhuh;fs; jug;gpy; kWf;fg;gltpy;iy. ,e;epiyapy; k.rh.M.1 Mtzj;jpy; yhhp Xl;Leh; kPJ Fw;w tof;F gjpT nra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ vd;gij Kjy; epiyahf ghprPyidf;F vLj;Jf;nfhz;Lk; kDtpy; Fwg;gl;Ls;s tpgj;jpd; NghJ yhhpia mjd; Xl;Leh; mjpNtfkhftk; ftdf;Fiwthftk; Xl;b te;J tpgj;ij Vw;gLj;jpajhf 1tJ gpur;rpidf;F jPh;T fhzg;gLfpwJ?
9. Based on the above finding, the learned counsel for the respondents /Claimants submitted that accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry, which was insured with the appellant/Insurance Company and the finding of the Tribunal deserves no interference and hence, this appeal has to be dismissed.
10. Heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides and perused the materials available on record.
11. A perusal of the award passed by the Tribunal clearly shows that the Tribunal has discussed in detail and found that due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, which was insured with the appellant/Insurance Company, the accident had occurred and hence, directed the first and second respondents to pay the compensation to the claimants and therefore, there is no infirmity in the award passed by the Tribunal and the same does not require interference at the hands of this Court.
12. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the award dated 23.07.2014, passed in MCOP.No.376 of 2013, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Cum Special District Judge, Trichirappalli is hereby confirmed. The appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire award amount with accrued interests and costs, 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 their share as apportioned by the Tribunal, with accrued interests and costs, without filing any formal petition before the Tribunal. No Costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
To
1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Cum Special District Judge, Trichirappalli.
2.The Record Keeper, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
.