Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 3482 (MAD)

K. Thiyagarajan v. S. Krishnakumar

2012-08-06

ARUNA JAGADEESAN

body2012
Judgment :- 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 29.11.2008 made in MCOP.No.1932/2006 by the learned V Small Causes Judge (MACT) Chennai, whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- as no fault liability with interest at 7.5 per cent p.a. from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization. 2. The Appellant/claimant has met with an accident on 31.1.2006at 16.10 hours, when he was proceeding from Pallavaram to Meenambakkam along the GST Road and he was hit by a Car bearing Reg.No.TN-22-AM-2550 which was coming in the opposite direction. According to the claimant, without any signal or indication the car driver suddenly took 'U' turn which resulted in the accident. He sustained injuries and was treated as an inpatient in a private nursing home. It is his case that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car and therefore, the 2nd Respondent Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation. 3. Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined himself as PW.1 and marked Ex.P1 First Information Report registered on the complaint lodged by the driver of the car, wherein it is stated that the car was proceeding towards Meenambakkam and was taking 'U' turn and at that time, the claimant, who was riding the motorcycle, came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the car, as a result of which, the left side doors of the car got damaged. Admittedly, the claimant has pleaded guilty before the criminal court and paid a fine of Rs.750/-. Charge sheet filed in the criminal court has been filed as Ex.R2 by the Insurance Company. The Tribunal, after analysing the entire evidence, concluded that the entire negligence was on the part of the claimant, who was riding the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and thus, awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- as no fault liability to the claimant. 4. The learned counsel for the Appellant would contend that the Tribunal erred in relying upon the finding of the criminal court in coming to the conclusion that the negligence was on the part of the claimant and contended that the car driver without giving any signal or indication made 'U' turn which resulted in the accident. 4. The learned counsel for the Appellant would contend that the Tribunal erred in relying upon the finding of the criminal court in coming to the conclusion that the negligence was on the part of the claimant and contended that the car driver without giving any signal or indication made 'U' turn which resulted in the accident. He would submit that before making 'U' turn the car driver did not take care to see whether any vehicle was coming in the opposite direction and therefore, he would submit that the car driver is equally negligent assuming for a moment that there was negligent on the part of the claimant. He would further submit that the car driver also contributed to the accident and therefore, the finding of the Tribunal awarding only Rs.25000/-as no fault liability is not sustainable. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the impugned award in all respects and submitted that no evidence was adduced by the claimant to prove that there was no negligence on his part or the car driver also contributed to the negligence. 6. This court heard the submissions of the learned counsel on either side and also perused the records. 7. In so far as the admissibility of the judgment of the criminal court in a civil proceedings is concerned, it is the consistent view taken by this court that it cannot be relied upon on its face value and some other independent evidence has to be put in by the person who tries to establish the fact before the court. It is no doubt true that the Division Bench of this court has held in Metropolitan Transport Corporation Limited Vs. G.Gnanam (2004-2-TNMAC-115) that the Tribunal is not correct in relying on the penalty paid by the driver before the criminal court to fix the entire responsibility on the driver. 8. In the present case, except the interested testimony of the claimant before the Tribunal, there is no evidence to show that there was negligence on the part of the car driver. From the confession of guilt made by the claimant, it is clear that the confession made before the criminal court is an admission against his interest and the same has to be taken into account in rendering a decision on the relative stands taken by the parties in the controversy. From the confession of guilt made by the claimant, it is clear that the confession made before the criminal court is an admission against his interest and the same has to be taken into account in rendering a decision on the relative stands taken by the parties in the controversy. If the party who made admission before the criminal court wants the Tribunal not to rely upon it, he has to explain as to why and under what circumstances, such evidence was given before the criminal court contrary to the real fact. 9. In the present case, though it is argued by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the driver of the car contributed to the negligence, inasmuch as he has not taken care before making 'U' turn regarding the oncoming vehicles, there is no evidence let in by the Appellant to substantiate his contention before the Tribunal. In the absence of any other piece of evidence, the judgment of the criminal court rendered on the confession made by the claimant cannot be ignored. In the present case, except the oral testimony of the claimant, there is no piece of evidence to show that the accident took place in the manner as described by him. In the present case, the claimant has failed to establish that the accident took place as narrated by him. In fact, he has admitted in his cross examination that he has pleaded guilty before the criminal court admitting the fact that the accident occurred due to his negligence. He has not given any explanation as to why and under what circumstances, he was forced to plead guilty before the criminal court. In the absence of any material to discern that the admission on the part of the claimant before the criminal court was not a voluntary one, there is no embargo for the court to treat the admission as genuine. 10. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the decision of this court reported in 2008-ACJ-2552 [The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. K.Balasubramanian] wherein it has been observed that the judgment of the criminal court on admission can constitute best evidence when facts are not proved to be incorrect or false. The operative portion of the judgment goes thus:- "10. ... K.Balasubramanian] wherein it has been observed that the judgment of the criminal court on admission can constitute best evidence when facts are not proved to be incorrect or false. The operative portion of the judgment goes thus:- "10. ... It is well settled proposition of law that the judgments of the criminal courts are neither binding on the civil court/Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal not relevant in a civil case or a claim for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, except for the limited purpose of showing that there was a criminal prosecution which ended in conviction or acquittal. But, there is an exception to the general rule. When an accused pleads guilty and is convicted based on his admission, then the judgment of criminal court becomes admissible and relevant in the civil proceedings and proceedings before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, not because it is a judgment of the criminal court, but as a document containing an admission. Of course, the admissions are not the conclusive proof of the fact admitted therein. But unless and until they are proved to be incorrect or false by the person against whom the admissions are sought to be used as evidence, the same shall be the best piece of evidence." 11. In the present case, even though the judgment of the criminal court is an outcome of the admission by the claimant, as there is no evidence to prove that the plea of guilty pleaded by the claimant was incorrect or false or tainted with incorrect facts, the same could form basis for this court to come to a conclusion that the claimant was negligent in causing the accident. In the present case, the claimant has miserably failed to examine any of the witnesses before the Tribunal who allegedly seen the accident. In the absence of any other supporting factors, it cannot be held that the claimant was not negligent or the car driver also contributed to the negligence. 12. In view of the reasons stated above, I am of the view that the Tribunal was right in holding that the claimant was the tort-feasor and it was justified in awarding Rs.25,000/-as compensation to the claimant. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs.