High Court · 2025
Case Details
CMA.Nos.3328 and 3376 of 2021IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 17.03.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHARCMA.Nos.3328 and 3376 of 2021CMA.No.3328 of 2021:Divisional Manager,M/s.IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited,Pondy-Villupuram Road, Opp.Kumaran Store,Pavalakkaranchavadi, Puducherry. ... AppellantVs.1.Omprakash2.Suresh ... RespondentsCivil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the order and decree dated 23.12.2020 made in MCOP.No.472 of 2017, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Court, Puducherry.For Appellant :Mr.S.ArunkumarFor Respondents:Mr.S.Ramprabu for R1No Appearance for R2CMA.No.3376 of 2021:1/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.Nos.3328 and 3376 of 2021Divisional Manager,M/s.IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited,Pondy-Villupuram Road, Opp.Kumaran Store,Pavalakkaranchavadi, Puducherry. ... AppellantVs.1.Raveena @ Raveenammbal2.Suresh ... RespondentsCivil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the order and decree dated 23.12.2020 made in MCOP.No.473 of 2017, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Court, Puducherry.For Appellant :Mr.S.ArunkumarFor Respondents:Mr.S.Ramprabu for R1No Appearance for R2 C O M M O N J U D G M E N TThese appeals are filed by the Insurance Company challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in MCOP.Nos.472 and 473 of 2017.2. The first respondent/claimant in both the appeals travelled in 2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.Nos.3328 and 3376 of 2021a two wheeler (Yamaha Ray.Z) bearing registration No.PY-01-CM-8375 on 26.03.2017. When they came near Malattaru Bridge, Reddichavady, Cuddalore Taluk, a Honda Unicorn Motorcycle belonged to the second respondent insured with the appellant bearing registration No.TN-31AH-7616 was driven by its rider in a rash and negligent manner turned to its right side suddenly. The rider of Yamaha Bike namely the first respondent/claimant in CMA.No.3328 of 2021 applied sudden brake and as a result of which, the two wheeler was toppled and both the rider and the pillion rider received grievous injuries. Hence, the motor accident claim petitions have been filed.3. The claim petitions were opposed by the Insurance company by denying the manner of accident as described in the claim petitions. It was the case of the appellant that the accident had occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the rider of the Yamaha bike. The Insurance Company also denied the age, income, disability etc., as claimed in the claim petitions.4. The Tribunal based on the evidence available on record 3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.Nos.3328 and 3376 of 2021came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the rider of the Honda bike insured with the appellant and consequently held that insurance company was liable to pay compensation for the injuries suffered by the claimants. Aggrieved by the same, the Insurance Company has come by way of these appeals.5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant insurance company would submit that the rider of the vehicle insured with the appellant turned to his right side by putting indicator in a slow and steady manner and the accident had occurred only due to the application of sudden brake by the claimant in CMA.No.3328 of 2021.6. The learned counsel submitted that the FIR was initially registered against the rider of the vehicle insured with the appellant. Later on, the final report was filed closing the criminal case against him as 'mistake of fact'. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the first 4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.Nos.3328 and 3376 of 2021respondents/claimants would submit that based on the evidence of PW.1 and the admission of RW.1 and RW.2, the Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that the entire negligence was on the part of the rider of the vehicle insured with the appellant and the said finding requires no interference. 8. Both the claimants were examined as PW.1 in the respective claim petitions. The police officer was examined as RW.1 and the driver of the vehicle insured with appellant insurance company was examined as RW.2. The claimants in their evidence clearly deposed that RW.2, suddenly turned his vehicle to right side without waiting for road clearance and the said act of RW.2 had resulted in accident. The driver of the vehicle insured with the appellant in his evidence deposed as follows:“ehd; ehh;kyhf 20 my;yJ 30 fp//kP ntfj;jpy;jhd; rhiyiaf; fle;njd;/ mg;nghJ flY}hpypUe;J ghz;o nehf;fp !;Tl;oapy; fztd; kidtp te;jhh;fs;/ mth;fs; bkJthfj;jhd; te;jhh;fs;/ ehd; jpUk;g[k;nghJ ehd; tUtij vjph;ghh;f;fhjjhy; gpnuf; moj;jhh;fs;/ gpnuf; moj;J fPnH tpGe;Jtpl;lhh;fs;/”5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.Nos.3328 and 3376 of 2021 9. A reading of the above evidence by RW.2 would indicate that the claimants were proceeding in a direct line on the left hand side of the road. The rider of the vehicle insured with the appellant (RW.2) turned to his right side from the left hand side of the road and therefore, the person proceeding in direct line was not solely responsible for the accident. The responsibilities of person, making a right turns is more. Even though RW.2 turned his vehicle to right side by putting his indicator, he is expected to halt for some time and if satisfied with the clearance in the road, he can turn to his right and proceed to cross the road. Therefore, the responsibility of RW.2 who had taken right turn, was more when compared to that of the claimants, who proceeded on straight line.10. It is also seen from the evidence available on record, both the vehicles have not come in contact with each other. On seeing RW.2 turning his vehicle to the right side, claimant in CMA.No.3328 of 2021 applied sudden brake, as a result of which, his vehicle got skidded. Therefore, there was negligence on the part of the claimant in CMA.No.3328 of 2021 also. Therefore, this Court proceeds to fix 20% negligence on the part of the rider of Yamaha bike in CMA.No.3328 of 2021 6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.Nos.3328 and 3376 of 2021and 80% on the part of the rider of Honda Unicorn Motorcycle namely RW.2. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has not made any arguments on the question of quantum. Therefore, the compensation quantified by the Tribunal was affirmed, however, from the amount quantified by the Tribunal 20% shall be deducted towards contributory negligence on the part of the rider of Yamaha Bike. Hence, the claimant in CMA.Nos.3328 of 2021 is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,52,000/- after deducting 20% towards contributory negligence (Rs.1,90,000-38,000). CMA.No.3328 of 2021 is partly allowed and the amount quantified by the Tribunal is modified to that extent.12. It is stated by the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company that in CMA.No.3328 of 2021, the appellant has deposited 50% of the award amount and as far as CMA.No.3376 of 2021 is concerned the entire amount is deposited. Therefore, the Insurance Company is directed to deposit the balance amount together with interest in CMA.No.3328 of 2021 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt 7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.Nos.3328 and 3376 of 2021of copy of this order. 13. The 1st respondent/claimant is CMA.No.3376 of 2021 was a pillion rider in Yamaha Bike. There was no negligence on his part. The total compensation awarded is only Rs.28,000/- in CMA.No.3376 of 2021, therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. The 1st respondent/claimant is entitled to recover entire award amount from appellant, who is held to be a joint tort feasor, as per law laid down by Apex Court in Khenyi Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited reported in 2015(9)SCC 273. However, the appellant insurer is given liberty to recover 20% of award amount [Rs.5,600/-] from 2nd respondent owner of yamaha bike after paying the said amount to claimant. According to CMA.No.3376 of 2021 is dismissed with liberty to recover amount as stated above.8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.Nos.3328 and 3376 of 202114. CMA.No.3376 of 2021 filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.17.03.2025Index : Yes/NoSpeaking order:Yes/NoNeutral Citation:Yes/Noub To1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Court, Puducherry.2.The Section OfficerVR Section, High Court, Madras.9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.Nos.3328 and 3376 of 2021S.SOUNTHAR, J.ubCMA.Nos.3328 and 3376 of 202117.03.202510/10
CMA.Nos.3328 and 3376 of 2021IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 17.03.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHARCMA.Nos.3328 and 3376 of 2021CMA.No.3328 of 2021:Divisional Manager,M/s.IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited,Pondy-Villupuram Road, Opp.Kumaran Store,Pavalakkaranchavadi, Puducherry. ... AppellantVs.1.Omprakash2.Suresh ... RespondentsCivil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the order and decree dated 23.12.2020 made in MCOP.No.472 of 2017, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Court, Puducherry.For Appellant :Mr.S.ArunkumarFor Respondents:Mr.S.Ramprabu for R1No Appearance for R2CMA.No.3376 of 2021:1/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.Nos.3328 and 3376 of 2021Divisional Manager,M/s.IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited,Pondy-Villupuram Road, Opp.Kumaran Store,Pavalakkaranchavadi, Puducherry. ... AppellantVs.1.Raveena @ Raveenammbal2.Suresh ... RespondentsCivil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the order and decree dated 23.12.2020 made in MCOP.No.473 of 2017, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Court, Puducherry.For Appellant :Mr.S.ArunkumarFor Respondents:Mr.S.Ramprabu for R1No Appearance for R2 C O M M O N J U D G M E N TThese appeals are filed by the Insurance Company challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in MCOP.Nos.472 and 473 of 2017.2. The first respondent/claimant in both the appeals travelled in 2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.Nos.3328 and 3376 of 2021a two wheeler (Yamaha Ray.Z) bearing registration No.PY-01-CM-8375 on 26.03.2017. When they came near Malattaru Bridge, Reddichavady, Cuddalore Taluk, a Honda Unicorn Motorcycle belonged to the second respondent insured with the appellant bearing registration No.TN-31AH-7616 was driven by its rider in a rash and negligent manner turned to its right side suddenly. The rider of Yamaha Bike namely the first respondent/claimant in CMA.No.3328 of 2021 applied sudden brake and as a result of which, the two wheeler was toppled and both the rider and the pillion rider received grievous injuries. Hence, the motor accident claim petitions have been filed.3. The claim petitions were opposed by the Insurance company by denying the manner of accident as described in the claim petitions. It was the case of the appellant that the accident had occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the rider of the Yamaha bike. The Insurance Company also denied the age, income, disability etc., as claimed in the claim petitions.4. The Tribunal based on the evidence available on record 3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.Nos.3328 and 3376 of 2021came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the rider of the Honda bike insured with the appellant and consequently held that insurance company was liable to pay compensation for the injuries suffered by the claimants. Aggrieved by the same, the Insurance Company has come by way of these appeals.5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant insurance company would submit that the rider of the vehicle insured with the appellant turned to his right side by putting indicator in a slow and steady manner and the accident had occurred only due to the application of sudden brake by the claimant in CMA.No.3328 of 2021.6. The learned counsel submitted that the FIR was initially registered against the rider of the vehicle insured with the appellant. Later on, the final report was filed closing the criminal case against him as 'mistake of fact'. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the first 4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.Nos.3328 and 3376 of 2021respondents/claimants would submit that based on the evidence of PW.1 and the admission of RW.1 and RW.2, the Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that the entire negligence was on the part of the rider of the vehicle insured with the appellant and the said finding requires no interference. 8. Both the claimants were examined as PW.1 in the respective claim petitions. The police officer was examined as RW.1 and the driver of the vehicle insured with appellant insurance company was examined as RW.2. The claimants in their evidence clearly deposed that RW.2, suddenly turned his vehicle to right side without waiting for road clearance and the said act of RW.2 had resulted in accident. The driver of the vehicle insured with the appellant in his evidence deposed as follows:“ehd; ehh;kyhf 20 my;yJ 30 fp//kP ntfj;jpy;jhd; rhiyiaf; fle;njd;/ mg;nghJ flY}hpypUe;J ghz;o nehf;fp !;Tl;oapy; fztd; kidtp te;jhh;fs;/ mth;fs; bkJthfj;jhd; te;jhh;fs;/ ehd; jpUk;g[k;nghJ ehd; tUtij vjph;ghh;f;fhjjhy; gpnuf; moj;jhh;fs;/ gpnuf; moj;J fPnH tpGe;Jtpl;lhh;fs;/”5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.Nos.3328 and 3376 of 2021 9. A reading of the above evidence by RW.2 would indicate that the claimants were proceeding in a direct line on the left hand side of the road. The rider of the vehicle insured with the appellant (RW.2) turned to his right side from the left hand side of the road and therefore, the person proceeding in direct line was not solely responsible for the accident. The responsibilities of person, making a right turns is more. Even though RW.2 turned his vehicle to right side by putting his indicator, he is expected to halt for some time and if satisfied with the clearance in the road, he can turn to his right and proceed to cross the road. Therefore, the responsibility of RW.2 who had taken right turn, was more when compared to that of the claimants, who proceeded on straight line.10. It is also seen from the evidence available on record, both the vehicles have not come in contact with each other. On seeing RW.2 turning his vehicle to the right side, claimant in CMA.No.3328 of 2021 applied sudden brake, as a result of which, his vehicle got skidded. Therefore, there was negligence on the part of the claimant in CMA.No.3328 of 2021 also. Therefore, this Court proceeds to fix 20% negligence on the part of the rider of Yamaha bike in CMA.No.3328 of 2021 6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.Nos.3328 and 3376 of 2021and 80% on the part of the rider of Honda Unicorn Motorcycle namely RW.2. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has not made any arguments on the question of quantum. Therefore, the compensation quantified by the Tribunal was affirmed, however, from the amount quantified by the Tribunal 20% shall be deducted towards contributory negligence on the part of the rider of Yamaha Bike. Hence, the claimant in CMA.Nos.3328 of 2021 is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,52,000/- after deducting 20% towards contributory negligence (Rs.1,90,000-38,000). CMA.No.3328 of 2021 is partly allowed and the amount quantified by the Tribunal is modified to that extent.12. It is stated by the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company that in CMA.No.3328 of 2021, the appellant has deposited 50% of the award amount and as far as CMA.No.3376 of 2021 is concerned the entire amount is deposited. Therefore, the Insurance Company is directed to deposit the balance amount together with interest in CMA.No.3328 of 2021 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt 7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.Nos.3328 and 3376 of 2021of copy of this order. 13. The 1st respondent/claimant is CMA.No.3376 of 2021 was a pillion rider in Yamaha Bike. There was no negligence on his part. The total compensation awarded is only Rs.28,000/- in CMA.No.3376 of 2021, therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. The 1st respondent/claimant is entitled to recover entire award amount from appellant, who is held to be a joint tort feasor, as per law laid down by Apex Court in Khenyi Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited reported in 2015(9)SCC 273. However, the appellant insurer is given liberty to recover 20% of award amount [Rs.5,600/-] from 2nd respondent owner of yamaha bike after paying the said amount to claimant. According to CMA.No.3376 of 2021 is dismissed with liberty to recover amount as stated above.8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.Nos.3328 and 3376 of 202114. CMA.No.3376 of 2021 filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.17.03.2025Index : Yes/NoSpeaking order:Yes/NoNeutral Citation:Yes/Noub To1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Court, Puducherry.2.The Section OfficerVR Section, High Court, Madras.9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.Nos.3328 and 3376 of 2021S.SOUNTHAR, J.ubCMA.Nos.3328 and 3376 of 202117.03.202510/10