Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 2727 (MAD)

N. Ramachandran v. Meera & Others

2009-07-28

S.PALANIVELU

body2009
Judgment :- The following the allegations in brief contentions contained in the claim petition. On 01.01.2003 at about 5.30 p.m. while the deceased Murugan was going by his Hero Majestic PY 02 1600 along Kollumankudi -Kumbakonam Main road, near grave yard in Karukkathi village, the appellant came from the opposite side in his Hero Majestic Motor Vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 51 4990 in a rash and negligent manner and without following the traffic rules in a wrong side, dashed against the two wheeler rode by Murugan by means of which he sustained serious bleeding injuries and he breathed his last breathe on the spot. The accident took place only due to the rash and negligent driving of the appellant. A case in Crime No.2 of 2003 was registered in Peralam Police Station against the appellant under Section 304 (A) of I.P.C. The deceased was earning a sum of Rs.4, 500/- by milk vending business. The first claimant is his wife, second minor claimant is their son and the third claimant is his mother. Hence, a sum of Rs.3, 00,000 is prayed for as compensation. 2(a). In the counter filed by the appellant, it is stated that it is true to state that in a road traffic accident, Murugan died on 01.01.2003 at 5.30 p.m. But this appellant is not responsible for the accident. The vehicle rode by this appellant did not dash with the vehicle in which Murugan was coming. The appellant was riding the two wheeler in which his wife and his two children were also sitting, along Karaikal - Kumbakonam road on the left side in a slow speed. At that time, a bus belonging to the Transport Corporation was coming from east to west and hence the appellant took his vehicle to the Northern side of the road. Since there was a pit on the northern side of the road, the appellant stopped his vehicle about three feet away from the pit. The speed of the bus was reduced and the said Murugan on seeing the bus which was going slowly came speedly, to overtake the bus on its right side and he did not notice the pit and fell down inside the pit and sustained injury on his head and died. The speed of the bus was reduced and the said Murugan on seeing the bus which was going slowly came speedly, to overtake the bus on its right side and he did not notice the pit and fell down inside the pit and sustained injury on his head and died. While he was falling down, the lid of the milk can which was tied in his two wheeler struck on the forehead of the appellant and hence he suffered injury. The accident took place in the above said manner and there was no collision of the vehicles. 2(b). In the Motor Vehicle Inspectors Report it is stated that the motor cycle of this appellant did not suffer any damage. Had it dashed against the vehicle driven by Murugan, there might have been damages and the wife and children of the appellant would also have sustained injuries. The accident took place only due to the carelessness of Murugan who came in an intoxicated condition and hence the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation. It is false to state that the said Murugan was earning a sum of Rs.4, 500/- per month by milk vending business. The compensation claimed is on the higher side. Hence, the petition has to be dismissed. 3. The Learned Tribunal Judge after analysing the evidence and documents on record has observed that the accident took place by mistake of the appellant and by dashing of the appellants two wheeler on Murugans vehicle. Hence, this appeal. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant Mr.K.Chandrasekaran would strenuously contend that in as much as there are overwhelming and ample materials on record to discern that Murugan was in inebriated condition at the time of accident, as evident from toxicology report and the sketch would show that the accident could not have taken place as mentioned in the F.I.R and portrayed by the claimants side, and that the Tribunal Judge has miserably failed to appreciate the legal implications of the Criminal Court Judgment by means of which this appellant was acquitted. .5. The learned counsel for the appellant would garner support from a decision of this Court reported in 2006 (1) CTC 446 , Duraivendhan Vs. Hindu Bharathi Education Company, Ambur and another in which this Court has come down heavily on the person who drive the vehicle in an intoxicated condition. .5. The learned counsel for the appellant would garner support from a decision of this Court reported in 2006 (1) CTC 446 , Duraivendhan Vs. Hindu Bharathi Education Company, Ambur and another in which this Court has come down heavily on the person who drive the vehicle in an intoxicated condition. The relevant portion is as follows - ."3.On a perusal of the award impugned in this appeal, I find that the Tribunal has perfectly justified in its conclusion, when it held that the appellant contributed to the accident and therefore, there is no scope to award any higher compensation and mulct the owner of the vehicle or its insurer. Day in and day out, it is being noticed that in spite of the traffic authorities repeatedly cautioning the drivers and the two-wheeler rider snot to drive such vehicles under the influence of alcohol, such cautions were being flouted with impunity. Further, driving the vehicle under the influence of alcohol is prohibited and an offence under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. In such circumstances, when persons drive the vehicle under the influence of Alcohol and thereby meet with an accident, it has to be held that any sympathy shown to such persons would be a misplaced one and it will only encourage such persons to continue to violate the Law and thereby they will not only get themselves involved in such accidents, but would be a source of perennial threat to other road users and innocent public. Since such accidents due to alcoholic influence is on the increase, it is high time that the Law makers should bring about appropriate legislation prohibiting payment of any compensation to such violators of Law, by whose impudent adverturism the victims are only the innocent gullible public. Looked at from any angle, the claim of such persons cannot be considered on part with the claim of other persons, who had been victims of such accidents and who suffered such injuries for no fault of theirs". .6. Looked at from any angle, the claim of such persons cannot be considered on part with the claim of other persons, who had been victims of such accidents and who suffered such injuries for no fault of theirs". .6. Repelling the above said argument, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that there is no wrong on the part of the Tribunal to come to a conclusion that the accident took place due to the negligence on the part of the appellant, that it has properly appreciated the evidence on the basis of a Criminal Court Judgment and that the quantum has also been fixed in a reasonable manner. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the appellant did not possess any valid licence which is mentioned in the Motor Vehicle Inspectors report that his vehicle was also no insured at the time of accident. Equally, it is also not shown that the deceased was having any licence. Mere non-possession of the licence by the appellant would not establish that he was negligent at the time of accident. 8. The first and foremost thing to be considered in this case is the whether the deceased was in inebriated condition at the time of accident. During Post Mortem, his internal organs were taken and were despatched for toxicological examination. The Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Forensic Science Department, after analysing the stomach and its contents of the deceased, has opined that 518 mgs. Of ethyl alcohol but not other poison was detected. The scientific evidence would show that viscera of Murugan contained Ethyl Alcohol. Hence, it is evident that the deceased had consumed alcohol at the time of accident and naturally he should have been in an inebriated condition when he was riding his vehicle. 9. In this regard, this Court does not accept the reasoning of the Tribunal which goes to the effect that even though the deceased had drunk alcohol, there was no evidence to show that he rode the vehicle in a wrong side. Even though there is no record to show that there was a pit in the side of accident, it is for the claimants to show that the accident took place as mentioned in the F.I.R. The toxicology report plays crucial role in this case to depict that the deceased was in an intoxicated condition at the time of accident. .10. Even though there is no record to show that there was a pit in the side of accident, it is for the claimants to show that the accident took place as mentioned in the F.I.R. The toxicology report plays crucial role in this case to depict that the deceased was in an intoxicated condition at the time of accident. .10. It is the next limb of contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the sketch would amply demonstrate that there could be no connection between the accident and the vehicle belonging to the respondent. A perusal of the rough site plan prepared by the Police marked as Ex.P.7 would show that the vehicle of the respondent is far away from the accident place and the corpse of the deceased is also in a place which is distant from the place of occurrence. Indicating the above said features in the said plan, the learned counsel for the appellant would state that the sketch would improbalise the version of the claimants. His arguments contains considerable force. 11. As far as the binding nature of the judgment of a Criminal Court is concerned, it has been well settled by this Court that the judgment of the Criminal Court would not form sole basis to reach a conclusion but before it can be relied upon, the court shall ensure that other evidence shall also be forthcoming to support the versions and findings and conclusions in the Criminal Court judgment. In 2009 5 M.L.J, 876, New India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sekar and another, this Court has observed that even if the Criminal Court judgment was delivered on merits, the party relies upon the facts leading to the accident has to establish before the Civil Court that the accident took place as portrayed by him. It is no doubt 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 of this Court to various portions of the judgment wherein the Criminal Court has considered the admissibility of the evidence let in by the prosecution. It is no doubt 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 of this Court to various portions of the judgment wherein the Criminal Court has considered the admissibility of the evidence let in by the prosecution. He is definite that the tribunal has not indicated any negligence on the part of this appellant and in this regard on the strength of other materials available in this case, there is no harm for this Court to place reliance upon the conclusion reached by the Criminal Court. In order to support the findings and conclusions in the criminal case, sufficient materials are available in this case. The clinching evidence is the report by the toxicology division and the salient features in the rough sketch. 13. Even though the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the tribunal has not decided the negligence on the part of the appellant, the tribunal has elaborately discussed about the evidence on record and at the end of the discussion in Point No.1, it has observed that due to the negligence of the appellant, the accident took place. But, this court is not in acceptance with the said finding for the reason that the deceased was coming in an intoxicated condition. .14. Yet another leaf of contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Motor Vehicle Inspector did not find any damage to the vehicle belonging to this appellant and hence it can be safely concluded that the vehicle of this appellant did not involve in the accident. But the vehicle was inspected by the Motor Vehicle Inspector much later the accident, which took place on 01.01.2002 and the vehicle, was taken by the Motor Vehicle Inspector on 08.01.2002. Hence, in the interrugnam period, nobody knows what would have happened to the vehicle and no definite deduction could be taken on the basis of the Motor Vehicle Inspectors report. 15. In view of the above said observations and findings, after careful scrutiny of the materials on record, this court is of the considered opinion that the negligence and rashness on the part of the appellant has not been shown which is a salient feature for the grant of compensation for the claimants under the Motor Vehicles Act. 15. In view of the above said observations and findings, after careful scrutiny of the materials on record, this court is of the considered opinion that the negligence and rashness on the part of the appellant has not been shown which is a salient feature for the grant of compensation for the claimants under the Motor Vehicles Act. Hence, no question of grant of compensation would arise. The interference with the award passed by the tribunal is inevitable and 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.