Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 3881 (MAD)

Saravanan v. Sowmya

2013-11-11

S.VIMALA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. The claimant, Saravanan, aged 40 years, a driver by profession, earning a monthly income of Rs.6,000/-, while driving the Mahindra van bearing Reg.No.TN-28-V-2058, met with an accident on 01.06.2000, when a Maruthi van hit against the Mahindra van and in that accident, he sustained injuries. In respect of the injuries sustained, he filed the claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation. 2. The claim was resisted by the second respondent, New India Assurance Co., on the ground that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the claimant himself and when the claimant himself is a tortfeasor, he is not entitled to any compensation. 3. The Tribunal, on consideration of materials placed before it, gave a finding that the claimant himself was responsible for the rash and negligent driving and therefore, the claim petition has to be dismissed. 4. Challenging the dismissal of the claim petition, the claimant has filed this appeal. 5. While dismissing the claim petition, the Tribunal took into consideration the connected claim petition filed against the claimant herein, in respect of the same accident and came to the conclusion that the finding on negligence, as recorded against the claimant herein, was not challenged by the claimant himself and therefore, he was estopped from contending that he was not negligent, on the principle of constructive res judi cata. 6. In respect of the death of one Sakthikumar, who was driving the Maruthi van at the time of accident, a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.127 of 2002 was filed and in that case, it was contended that it was only on account of rash and negligent driving of the Mahindra van, the accident took place. In that case, the copy of the judgment (Ex.R-3), wherein the claimant herein has admitted the rash and negligent driving, has been relied upon. Based upon that judgment, the claimant herein was held responsible for the accident. Based on these findings, the claim petition filed by the appellant / claimant herein has been dismissed. 6.1. It is also pointed out that the compensation amount awarded in that case has already been deposited by the insurance company and the claimants therein have withdrawn the same. 7. Admittedly, the finding rendered in M.C.O.P.No.127 of 2002 has not been challenged. Therefore, the claimant is estopped from contending that he was neither rash nor negligent in driving the vehicle. It is also pointed out that the compensation amount awarded in that case has already been deposited by the insurance company and the claimants therein have withdrawn the same. 7. Admittedly, the finding rendered in M.C.O.P.No.127 of 2002 has not been challenged. Therefore, the claimant is estopped from contending that he was neither rash nor negligent in driving the vehicle. When he is proved to be at fault and when he himself is a tortfeasor and the finding of the Tribunal that he is the tortfeasor has not been challenged, there is no further ground available to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal and the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellant / claimant. 8. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs.