N.Ramachandran v. Meera

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 28.07.2009CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELUC.M.A.No.2355 of 2004andC.M.P. No.14058 of 2004N.Ramachandran... Appellant/RespondentVs1.Meera2.Minor Akash rep. by the mother and Guardian 1st respondent3.Sanku Bai... Respondents /ClaimantsPRAYER:Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the judgment and decreein M.A.C.O.P.No.560 of 2003 dated 23.06.2004 on the file of MotorAccidents Claims Tribunal (District Court) Nagapattinam.For Appellant : Mr.K.ChandrasekaranFor Respondents: Mr.M.Thamizhavel- - - - -J U D G M E N TThe following the allegations in brief contentions contained inthe claim petition. On 01.01.2003 at about 5.30 p.m. while the deceased Murugan wasgoing by his Hero Majestic PY 02 1600 along Kollumankudi -Kumbakonam Main road, near grave yard in Karukkathi village, theappellant came from the opposite side in his Hero Majestic MotorVehicle bearing Registration No.TN 51 4990 in a rash and negligentmanner and without following the traffic rules in a wrong side,dashed against the two wheeler rode by Murugan by means of which hesustained serious bleeding injuries and he breathed his last breathe https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ on the spot. The accident took place only due to the rash andnegligent driving of the appellant . A case in Crime No.2 of 2003was registered in Peralam Police Station against the appellant underSection 304 (A) of I.P.C. The deceased was earning a sum ofRs.4,500/- by milk vending business. The first claimant is hiswife, second minor claimant is their son and the third claimant ishis mother. Hence, a sum of Rs.3,00,000 is prayed for ascompensation.2(a). In the counter filed by the appellant, it is stated thatit is true to state that in a road traffic accident, Murugan died on01.01.2003 at 5.30 p.m. But this appellant is not responsible forthe accident. The vehicle rode by this appellant did not dash withthe vehicle in which Murugan was coming. The appellant was ridingthe two wheeler in which his wife and his two children were alsositting, along Karaikal - Kumbakonam road on the left side in a slowspeed. At that time, a bus belonging to the Transport Corporationwas coming from east to west and hence the appellant took hisvehicle to the Northern side of the road. Since there was a pit onthe northern side of the road, the appellant stopped his vehicleabout three feet away from the pit. The speed of the bus was reducedand the said Murugan on seeing the bus which was going slowly camespeedly, to overtake the bus on its right side and he did not noticethe pit and fell down inside the pit and sustained injury on hishead and died. While he was falling down, the lid of the milk canwhich was tied in his two wheeler struck on the forehead of theappellant and hence he suffered injury. The accident took place inthe above said manner and there was no collision of the vehicles.2(b). In the Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report it is stated thatthe motor cycle of this appellant did not suffer any damage. Had itdashed against the vehicle driven by Murugan, there might have beendamages and the wife and children of the appellant would also havesustained injuries. The accident took place only due to thecarelessness of Murugan who came in an intoxicated condition andhence the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation. It isfalse to state that the said Murugan was earning a sum of Rs.4,500/-per month by milk vending business. The compensation claimed is onthe higher side. Hence, the petition has to be dismissed. 3.The Learned Tribunal Judge after analysing the evidence anddocuments on record has observed that the accident took place bymistake of the appellant and by dashing of the appellant's twowheeler on Murugan's vehicle. Hence, this appeal. 4.The learned counsel for the appellant Mr.K.Chandrasekaranwould strenuously contend that in as much as there are overwhelmingand ample materials on record to discern that Murugan was ininebriated condition at the time of accident, as evident from https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ toxicology report and the sketch would show that the accident couldnot have taken place as mentioned in the F.I.R and portrayed by theclaimant's side, and that the Tribunal Judge has miserably failed toappreciate the legal implications of the Criminal Court Judgment bymeans of which this appellant was acquitted.5.The learned counsel for the appellant would garner supportfrom a decision of this Court reported in 2006 (1) CTC 446,Duraivendhan Vs. Hindu Bharathi Education Company, Ambur and anotherin which this Court has come down heavily on the person who drivethe vehicle in an intoxicated condition. The relevant portion is asfollows -"3.On a perusal of the award impugned in this appeal,I find that the Tribunal has perfectly justified in itsconclusion, when it held that the appellant contributed tothe accident and therefore, there is no scope to award anyhigher compensation and mulct the owner of the vehicle orits insurer. Day in and day out, it is being noticed thatin spite of the traffic authorities repeatedly cautioningthe drivers and the two-wheeler rider snot to drive suchvehicles under the influence of alcohol, such cautionswere being flouted with impunity. Further, driving thevehicle under the influence of alcohol is prohibited andan offence under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. Insuch circumstances, when persons drive the vehicle underthe influence of Alcohol and thereby meet with anaccident, it has to be held that any sympathy shown tosuch persons would be a misplaced one and it will onlyencourage such persons to continue to violate the Law andthereby they will not only get themselves involved in suchaccidents, but would be a source of perennial threat toother road users and innocent public. Since suchaccidents due to alcoholic influence is on the increase,it is high time that the Law makers should bring aboutappropriate legislation prohibiting payment of anycompensation to such violators of Law, by whose impudentadverturism the victims are only the innocent gulliblepublic. Looked at from any angle, the claim of suchpersons cannot be considered on part with the claim ofother persons, who had been victims of such accidents andwho suffered such injuries for no fault of theirs". 6.Repelling the above said argument, the learned counsel forthe respondents would submit that there is no wrong on the part ofthe Tribunal to come to a conclusion that the accident took placedue to the negligence on the part of the appellant, that it hasproperly appreciated the evidence on the basis of a Criminal CourtJudgment and that the quantum has also been fixed in a reasonable https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ manner.7.The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that theappellant did not possess any valid licence which is mentioned inthe Motor Vehicle Inspector's report that his vehicle was also noinsured at the time of accident. Equally, it is also not shown thatthe deceased was having any licence. Mere non-possession of thelicence by the appellant would not establish that he was negligentat the time of accident.8.The first and foremost thing to be considered in this case isthe whether the deceased was in inebriated condition at the timeof accident. During Post Mortem, his internal organs were taken andwere despatched for toxicological examination. The RegionalForensic Science Laboratory, Forensic Science Department, afteranalysing the stomach and its contents of the deceased, has opinedthat 518 mgs. Of ethyl alcohol but not other poison was detected.The scientific evidence would show that viscera of Murugan containedEthyl Alcohol. Hence, it is evident that the deceased had consumedalcohol at the time of accident and naturally he should have been inan inebriated condition when he was riding his vehicle. 9.In this regard, this Court does not accept the reasoning ofthe Tribunal which goes to the effect that even though the deceasedhad drunk alcohol, there was no evidence to show that he rode thevehicle in a wrong side. Even though there is no record to showthat there was a pit in the side of accident, it is for theclaimants to show that the accident took place as mentioned in theF.I.R. The toxicology report plays crucial role in this case todepict that the deceased was in an intoxicated condition at the timeof accident.10.It is the next limb of contention of the learned counsel forthe appellant that the sketch would amply demonstrate that therecould be no connection between the accident and the vehiclebelonging to the respondent. A perusal of the rough site planprepared by the Police marked as Ex.P.7 would show that the vehicleof the respondent is far away from the accident place and the corpseof the deceased is also in a place which is distant from the placeof occurrence. Indicating the above said features in the said plan,the learned counsel for the appellant would state that the sketchwould improbalise the version of the claimants. His argumentscontains considerable force. 11.As far as the binding nature of the judgment of a CriminalCourt is concerned, it has been well settled by this Court that thejudgment of the Criminal Court would not form sole basis to reach aconclusion but before it can be relied upon, the court shall ensurethat other evidence shall also be forthcoming to support the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ versions and findings and conclusions in the Criminal Courtjudgment. In 2009 5 M.L.J, 876, New India Insurance Company Ltd. v.Sekar and another, this Court has observed that even if the CriminalCourt judgment was delivered on merits, the party who relies uponthe facts leading to the accident has to establish before the CivilCourt that the accident took place as portrayed by him. It is nodoubt true that in the Criminal Court, the appellant was acquitted.There is no appeal from the said judgment. 12.The learned counsel for the Appellant draws attention ofthis Court to various portions of the judgment wherein the CriminalCourt has considered the admissibility of the evidence let in by theprosecution. He is definite that the tribunal has not indicatedany negligence on the part of this appellant and in this regard onthe strength of other materials available in this case, there is noharm for this Court to place reliance upon the conclusion reached bythe Criminal Court. In order to support the findings and conclusionsin the criminal case, sufficient materials are available in thiscase. The clinching evidence is the report by the toxicologydivision and the salient features in the rough sketch. 13.Even though the learned counsel for the appellant wouldsubmit that the tribunal has not decided the negligence on the partof the appellant, the tribunal has elaborately discussed about theevidence on record and at the end of the discussion in Point No.1,it has observed that due to the negligence of the appellant, theaccident took place. But, this court is not in acceptance with thesaid finding for the reason that the deceased was coming in anintoxicated condition. 14.Yet another leaf of contention of the learned counsel forthe appellant is that the Motor Vehicle Inspector did not find anydamage to the vehicle belonging to this appellant and hence it canbe safely concluded that the vehicle of this appellant did notinvolve in the accident. But the vehicle was inspected by the MotorVehicle Inspector much later the accident, which took place on01.01.2002 and the vehicle was taken by the Motor Vehicle Inspectoron 08.01.2002. Hence, in the interrugnam period, nobody knows whatwould have happened to the vehicle and no definite deduction couldbe taken on the basis of the Motor Vehicle Inspector's report.15.In view of the above said observations and findings, aftercareful scrutiny of the materials on record, this court is of theconsidered opinion that the negligence and rashness on the part ofthe appellant has not been shown which is a salient feature for thegrant of compensation for the claimants under the Motor VehiclesAct. Hence, no question of grant of compensation would arise. Theinterference with the award passed by the tribunal is inevitable and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the same deserves to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside. 16. In fine, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed.Consequently, the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.No costs.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarrgrTo1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal(District Court), Nagapattinam.2.The Section Officer,VR Section, High Court,Madras.+1cc to Mr.M.Thamizhavel,Advocate Sr 35177+1cc to Mr.K.Chandrasekaran, Advocate Sr 32620PUR(CO)km/20.8.C.M.A.No.2355 of 2004