Madras High Court · 2025

OrderToday, the matter is listed under the caption "for being mentioned", at the instance of the learned counsel for the respondents.2. Mr.K.Sudhakar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.T.K. Premkumar, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent are present.3. It is brought to the notice of this Court that some error has been crept in paragraph Nos.4 to 12 of the Judgment dated 19.06.2025. The said paragraph Nos.4 to 12 are to be replaced as follows:" 4.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, the injured was travelling as a pillion rider in a two wheeler bearing Registration NO.TN-60-S-3841 driven by one Baikyam @ Baikyanathan, along with another person, Muthuraj (complainant). It was alleged that a TATA Sumo vehicle bearing registration No.TN-69-M-2257, which was 2\18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis driven in a rash and negligent manner, collided with two wheeler and caused the accident. He further submitted that the 1st respondent was the driver of the TATA Sumo and was allegedly responsible for causing the accident, 2nd respondent was the owner of the said vehicle, and the 3rd respondent was the Insurance company.5. Before the Tribunal, the claim petition was dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction, holding that the petitioners were not residents of Tiruppur where the claim petition has been filed. It was also dismissed on the ground of negligence, on the allegation that the claimant (Pillion rider), deceased (Rider) and the Complainant (another pillion rider) had ridded the two wheeler under the influence of alcohol and were involved in triple riding. 6. The Appeal has been filed challenging the dismissal of the claim petition on the ground of negligence as well as the findings relating to jurisdiction.3\18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

7. On perusal of the deposition of PW1-Subramani (Pillion rider in the two wheeler) it is seen that he admitted that all three riders of the two wheeler had consumed alcohol but were not under its influence. PW-2 -Pasamalar deposed that her husband, Baikyanathan, had consumed alcohol, was under its influence and rode the two wheeler bearing registration no:TN-60-S-3841. RW1- the driver of the TATA sumo bearing registration No:TN-69-M2257, deposed that all three riders of the two wheeler bearing registration no TN-60-S-3841 had consumed alcohol and were under its influence.8. Further, the Motor Vehicle report in respect of the two-wheeler bearing registration No:TN-60-S-3841 revealed that the rider of the said two wheeler did not possess a valid and effective driving license on the date of the accident. 9. Based on the facts, 15% contributory negligence is fixed on the claimant for riding as a pillion rider after consuming alcohol and for indulging in triple riding.4\18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

10. Hence, the remaining 85% of the liability is fastened upon the 2nd and 3rd respondents. As the vehicle was duly insured, the 3rd respondent/Insurance Company is bound to pay the compensation accordingly.”4. Paragraph Nos.13,14 & 15 of the earlier order dated 19.06.2025 shall stand numbered as 11,12 & 13 respectively.5. Registry is directed to incorporate the above paragraph Nos.4 to 13 quoted above and issue fresh order copy to the parties forthwith.6. In other respects, the order dated 19.06.2025 shall remain unaltered.23.07.2025Index:Yes/NoSpeaking/non Speaking orderNeutral Case citation: yes/norriTo1. The Exclusive Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tiruppur.2. The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court, Madras.5\18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.rriCMA NO. 1085 of 202423.07.20256\18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA NO. 1085 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 19-06-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVICMA NO. 1085 of 2024SUBRAMANIS/o.late Karutharaj, P.Tharmathuppatty, North St, Aandipatti Tk, Theni Dist. and temporally at D/NO.13/5, Ramaiah Colony, East 1st Street, P.N.R.Road, Tiruppur. Appellant(s) VsMuthurajS/o.Balasubramaniam, 3/162, Pathrakaliamman Colony, Sivakasi. and 2 Others Respondent(s) PRAYER: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the Award dated 14.03.2024 made in MCOP.No.2186 of 2016 on the file of the Exclusive Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tiruppur.For Appellant(s): K.SudhakarFor Respondent(s): Mr.V.Shanmuganathan For R 1Mr.T.K. Premkumar For R3R2 - The Notice returned with endorsement " Door Locked"7\18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis JUDGEMENTThe appellant has filed this appeal to set aside the Award dated 14.03.2024 made in MCOP.No.2186 of 2016 on the file of the Exclusive Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tiruppur.2. The appellant is the claimants in M.C.O.P. No. 2186 of 2016 on the file of the Exclusive Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tiruppur. He filed the said claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 38,00,000/- for the injuries sustained in a motor accident which took place on 10.09.2016.3. The learned counsel for the appellant is challenging the findings of the Award passed by the Tribunal on the following grounds: (i) It is submitted that the finding of the Tribunal in dismissing the claim totally on the ground of lack of jurisdiction as well as negligence on the part of deceased, namely Bakyam @ Bakyanathan, is totally against evidence and all probablities of the case.(ii) It is submitted that the Tribunal is not correct in holding that the 8\18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis deceased was in a drunken mood, as per the wound certificate Ex.P3, issued with respect to one Mr.Subramani, who was pillion rider. Admittedly, there is no document to show that the deceased was in a drunken mood and as per Ex.P7, post-mortem certificate clearly reveals that deceased was not in drunken condition.(iii) The Tribunal failed to discus about other documents i.e.Ex.P7 (Post Mortem certificate) and mere admission of P.W.2 during the cross that 1st appellant husband was drunken condition, is not correct, as the same is contrary to documentary evidence. Likewise, PW1 also says that deceased had consumed alcohol, but all the documents are against the oral evidence.(iv) The Tribunal failed to consider even for argument sake that if the deceased had consumed Alcohol, that means he was not is position to drive the vehicle and the same point was considered by this Court in 2016 (1) TN MAC 854. It is held that mere consuming alcohol, and smell of the alcohol, cannot be concluded that the person lost control of his mind and body. Moreover, in the counter statement of the 1st respondent, it is not stated that the deceased consumed alcohol and there is no pleading in the counter, but some stray admission in the cross need not be looked into.9\18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis (v) The Tribunal is not correct in saying that there is lack of territorial Jurisdiction of the Tribunal and the Tribunal had not considered the entire evidence of PW2 and taken few sentence in cross examination of the PW2 and concluded that Tribunal was not having jurisdiction. The Tribunal need not go into more hyper-technical approach for rejecting the compensation to the victims in a road accident case and same point was considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in 2016 (1) TNMAC 1 (SC). In case on hand, 3rd respondent / Branch office was within the jurisdiction of Tiruppur and the same was explained by P.W.1 in his proof affidavit in Para No.5, but there is no discussion about the same in the judgment. Further, the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial Legislation.(vi) The Tribunal failed to consider that Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, says that the claimant resides, but not state that residence is permanent one or temporary one. Hence, petitioners clearly say that they are residing temporarily in Tiruppur for their avocation to run their life even before accident. Hence, the 1st appellant, and her husband works whereever the job was available and during the life time of the deceased, the appellant resided in the above mentioned Tiruppur Address. Even P.W.1 and P.W.2 in 10\18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis their deposition, clearly say that the appellant's residence was in Tiruppur with their landlord details.(vii) The Tribunal failed to consider that rough sketch and observation mahazar were marked properly. P.W.1 clearly says that the accident happened on the left side, but small deviation may happen.(viii) The Tribunal failed to consider P.W.3's evidence in the proper manner, who clearly speaks about the appellant's residence.ix) The Award of the tribunal is against the several dictums of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court.4. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that, at the time of the alleged accident, three persons were riding on the two-wheeler, and the pillion rider had consumed alcohol, which contributed to the accident. Furthermore, the claim petition was filed before the Tribunal at Tiruppur, while the alleged accident had occurred near Dindigul. Therefore, the Tribunal at Tiruppur had no jurisdiction to decide the case, and the same was rightly observed by the learned Trial Judge, which requires no 11\18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis interference. Additionally, it was submitted that the rider of the two-wheeler did not possess a valid driving licence, and there was contributory negligence on the part of the two-wheeler as well. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal as devoid of merits.5. In response, the learned counsel for the appellant argued, relying on the ratio laid down in 2016 (1) TNMAC 1 SC, Malati Sardar Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., & Others, in which stated as follows:" 14. The provision in question, in the present case, is a benevolent provision for the victims of accidents of negligent driving. The provision for territorial jurisdiction has to be interpreted consistent with the object of facilitating remedies for the victims of accidnets. Hyper-technical approach in such matters can hardly be appreciated. There is no bar to a claim petition being filed at a place where the Insurance company, which is the main contesting parties in such cases, has its business. In such cases, there is no prejudice to any party. There is no failure of justice. Moreover, in view of categorical decision of this Court in Mantoo Sarkar (Supra), contrary view taken by the High Court cannot be sustained. The High Court failed to notice the provision of Section 21, C.P.C."6. Though the deceased was a native of Theni, he had settled in 12\18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tiruppur for employment purposes at the time of the accident. Therefore, the claim petition filed before the Exclusive Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,Tiruppur was within the jurisdiction of that Tribunal. However, the Tribunal failed to appreciate this aspect, despite the deposition of P.W.3, who clearly stated that the deceased was residing in Tiruppur. 7. The Tribunal dismissed the case on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, observing that the claimant failed to produce documentary evidence to prove that the deceased was residing in Tiruppur. However, as per the above-cited ratio, the issue of territorial jurisdiction is deemed to be a hypothetical issue. Moreover, considering that the insurance company had its head office in Coimbatore, which is close to Tiruppur, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal at Tiruppur is well established.8. It is also an admitted fact that, at the time of the accident, the vehicle (a car) involved was insured with the 3rd respondent. The 2nd respondent was the owner of the vehicle, and the 1st respondent was the driver. Therefore, relying on the legal precedent and considering the 13\18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis beneficial object of the Motor Vehicles Act, which aims to provide remedy to accident victims, this Court is inclined to set aside the findings of the Tribunal.9. As regards the manner of the accident, it was revealed that on the date of the incident, the deceased was riding the two-wheeler along with with the appellant and one another. As per the FIR, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the opposite car by its driver.10. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/driver submitted that the driver of the two-wheeler was allegedly in a drunken state and drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. Thus, the accident was due to his own fault, and no negligence could be attributed to the driver of the car. According to the FIR, the deceased was driving the two-wheeler, while the appellant / pillion rider was under the influence of alcohol.11. P.W.2, the wife of the deceased, deposed that her husband was not in the habit of consuming alcohol. However, it is admitted that three 14\18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis persons were riding the two-wheeler, which is a clear violation of the traffic Rules. Furthermore, the deceased, who was driving the two-wheeler, did not establish that he possessed a valid driving licence. Based on these facts, a contributory negligence of 15% is fixed on the injured / claimant.12. The car involved in the accident was insured with the 3rd respondent. Hence, the remaining 85% of the liability is fastened upon the 2nd and 3rd respondents. As the vehicle was insured, the 3rd respondent/Insurance Company is bound to pay the compensation accordingly.13. On considering the submissions of both sides and upon perusal of the records, this Court is inclined to award compensation to the injured / appellant. The accident took place in the year 2016 and a sum of Rs.6,000/- is taken up for calculating per percentage of disability. Considering the nature of injury sustained by the claimant, the partial disability is fixed 40%. Therefore, the loss of income is fixed as Rs.2,40,000/- (6,000 x 40 = 2,40,000/-). The following tabular column would show the amount awarded by this Court under various heads. 15\18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Sl.NoHeadsAmount in Rs.1Partial disability (40% x 6000) 2,40,0002Loss of Income (12,000 x 6) 72,0003Attender Charges (300 x 30) 9,0004Transportation 10,0005Loss of amenities 15,000 Total 3,46,00014. Since the appellant / claimant had contributed to the accident, 15% is deducted from the total Award amount. Hence, the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.2,94,100/- (i.e., Rs.3,46,000/- - Rs.51,900/- = Rs.2,94,100/-). This amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit.15. In the result,i) The appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ii) The appellant/claimant is directed to pay the necessary court fee for the compensation amount, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the Registry is directed to draft the decree, after receipt of necessary court fee.(iii)The 3rd respondent, Sriram General Insurance Co, 16\18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Ltd.,Coimbatore, is directed to deposit the compensation amount of Rs.2,94,100/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of the claim petition till the date of deposit, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.2186 of 2016 on the file of the Exclusive Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tiruppur.(iv) On such deposit being made, the appellant / claimant is at liberty to withdraw the same, after following due process of law.19.06.2025Index:Yes/NoSpeaking/non Speaking orderNeutral Case citation: yes/norriTo1. The Exclusive Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tiruppur.2. The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court, Madras. 17\18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.rriCMA NO. 1085 of 202419.06.202518\18