Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2450 (MAD)

Logesh Reddy v. K. V. Krishnan

2012-06-14

P.DEVADASS

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. The claimant in M.C.O.P.No.179 of 2001, dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation amount, directed this appeal. 2. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, actually the rider of TVS-50 alone was responsible for the accident. However, the Tribunal had wrongly put 40% of the blame on the appellant and deducted 40% of the amount from the compensation amount. Further, less amount has been awarded as compensation. 3. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company contended that based on the evidence adduced, the Tribunal had recorded such a finding and awarded the compensation amount. 4. On 22.04.2001, at about 5.45 p.m., the appellant-Logesh Reddy had driven his Scooter keeping one Krishna Reddy as his pillion-rider. At that time, the TVS-50 owned by the first respondent, insured with the second respondent, came driven by the rider. An accident took place. In this, the appellant and the pillion-rider sustained multiple injuries. 5. The Tribunal recorded a finding that since in this accident two vehicles are involved, the appellant had also contributed to the accident and apportioned the negligence in the ratio of 40% and 60%. So, from the total compensation of Rs.90,000/-, it had deducted 40% and awarded only Rs.54,000/ to the appellant. 6. PWs.1 and 2-Logesh Reddy and Krishna Reddy have deposed that at the time of accident, the rider of TVS-50 came driven the bike in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against them. FIR has been filed by the Pillion-rider. The Police registered a case as against the rider of TVS-50. 7. To hold the appellant had also contributed to the accident, it must be established by acceptable evidence that by his act or omission he also contributed to the accident. Now in this case, only the evidence of Pws.1 and 2 is available. The rider of TVS-50 or any one who had seen the accident has been examined by the Insurance Company. In the absence of evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the appellant also came driven his bike in a rash and negligent manner and contributed to the accident. By the collision of two vehicles, in the absence of evidence, contributory negligence cannot be attributed to the appellant. In the circumstances, the Tribunal is not right in putting 40% of the blame on appellant. So, the Tribunal ought not to have deducted 40% of the amount from the compensation amount. By the collision of two vehicles, in the absence of evidence, contributory negligence cannot be attributed to the appellant. In the circumstances, the Tribunal is not right in putting 40% of the blame on appellant. So, the Tribunal ought not to have deducted 40% of the amount from the compensation amount. As regards the quantum aspect is concerned, the Tribunal had considered the relevant aspects and assessed the total compensation at Rs.90,000/-. In the circumstances, we are not interfering with that. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The award amount is modified. Rs.90,000/-with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of original petition till deposit is awarded. 2nd respondent/Insurance Company will deposit the entire amount within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, less the amount already deposited, if any. On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount, less amount, if any already withdrawn. No costs.