Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1099 (MAD)

V. Vinodkumar v. Minor R. Shruthi Shanmugha Priya

2014-06-03

S.MANIKUMAR

body2014
Judgment : 1. Material on record discloses that pursuant to the accident which occurred on 15.02.1999, a case in Crime No.193 of 1999 has been registered against the rider of the motor cycle, bearing Registration No.TN-37B-4842, under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC read with 134(a)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, on the file of Traffic Investigation Wing (East), Coimbatore. At the time of accident, the respondent/claimant, aged 7 years, was a II Standard student. She sustained a fracture in the nose resulting indisfiguration. Initially, she was treated in Ram Vikaram Hospital, Sowripalayam. Subsequently, she has taken treatment as inpatient in Ganga Hospital, Coimbatore, between 17.02.1999 and 22.02.1999. Contending inter alia that she suffered disfiguration on account of fracture in the nose, and for the pecuniary and non pecuniary loss, MCOP No.1121 of 1999 has been filed on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (III Additional Sub Judge), Coimbatore, claiming compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-. 2. Claim has been made by the father of the respondent/ claimant. The respondent/claimant has claimed that on 15.02.1999, about 05.30PM, when she was standing in front of the house, the abovesaid motor cycle, bearing Registration No.TN-37B-4842, driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against her and caused the accident. Mother of the minor, has witnessed the accident. In the claim petition, the owner of the vehicle, denied the manner of accident. He submitted that though the accident has occurred on 15.02.1999, FIR was lodged only on 20.02.1999. According to the owner, the complaint is false and fabricated.They further submitted that the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VIII, Coimbatore, who tried the 1st appellant V.Vinodkumar, in STC No.5899 of 1999,by Judgementdated 26.04.2001, acquitted him of the offence. 3. The appellants have contended that the respondent/claimant is not entitled to get compensation. Without prejudice to the same, they have disputed the quantum of compensation under various heads. 4. Before the Claims Tribunal, on behalf of the respondent/claimant, 3 witnesses have been examined, including PW3-Doctor. Ex.P.1-First Information Report, Ex.P.2-Charge sheet, Ex.P.3-Accident Register Copy, Ex.P.4-Wound Certificate, Ex.P.5-Rough Sketch, Ex.P.6-22.02.1999-Discharge summary, Ex.P.7, Ex.P.8 and Ex.P.10-Cash Receipts, Ex.P.9-Bills, Ex.P.11-Rental receipt, Ex.P.12 and Ex.P.15-X-rays, Ex.P.13-Scan and Ex.P.14-Disability Certificate, have been marked on the side of the respondent/claimant. RW1 is the witness, examined on behalf of the appellants. Ex.P.1-First Information Report, Ex.P.2-Charge sheet, Ex.P.3-Accident Register Copy, Ex.P.4-Wound Certificate, Ex.P.5-Rough Sketch, Ex.P.6-22.02.1999-Discharge summary, Ex.P.7, Ex.P.8 and Ex.P.10-Cash Receipts, Ex.P.9-Bills, Ex.P.11-Rental receipt, Ex.P.12 and Ex.P.15-X-rays, Ex.P.13-Scan and Ex.P.14-Disability Certificate, have been marked on the side of the respondent/claimant. RW1 is the witness, examined on behalf of the appellants. Ex.R1-Judgment copy of the Criminal Court, Ex.R2-First Information Report, Ex.R3-Rough Sketch and Ex.R.4-Statements produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VIII, Coimbatore, have been marked on the side of the appellants. 5. On evaluation of pleadings and evidence, the Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that the 1st appellant was negligent, in causing the accident. Having regard to the medical evidence, the Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.45,355/-as compensation, with interest @9% per annum, from the date of claim, till the date of realisation. 6. Being aggrieved by the finding, fixing negligence on the 1st appellant, rider of the Motor cycle, bearing Registration No.TN-37B-4842 and the consequential direction to pay compensation of Rs.45,355/-, the present appeal has been filed, seeking for reversal of the Judgment and Decree, Mr.V.Nicholas, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Claims Tribunal has failed to consider that the 1st appellant did not drive the motor cycle and that no such accident has occurred on 15.02.1999. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the Claims Tribunal has failed to consider the Judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VIII, Coimbatore, dated 26.04.2001, in STC No.5899 of 1999 in which the 1st appellant has been acquitted and therefore, submitted that the Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding compensation, ignoring Ex.R.1-Judgment in STC No.5899 of 1999, dated 26.04.2001, as stated supra. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the material available on record. 8. While adverting to the abovesaid grounds as to whether the vehicle was involved and driven by the 1st appellant, the Claims Tribunal has extracted a portion of Ex.R1-Judgment of the Criminal Court in STC No.5899 of 1999, dated 26.04.2001, as hereunder: (“Language”) Upon going through Ex.R.1-Judgment of the Criminal Court, the Claims Tribunal has rightly observed that at the time of accident, the vehicle was driven by the 1st appellant and that there was no denial. 9. 9. The Claims Tribunal has considered Ex.R.1-Judgment in STC No.5899 of 1999, dated 26.04.2001, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VIII, Coimbatore and rightly arrived at a conclusion that the motor cycle, bearing Registration No.TN-37B-4842, was involved in the accident and that the 1st appellant, by his rash and negligent driving, has dashed against the respondent/claimant and caused a fracture. The Claims Tribunal has also found that before the Criminal Court, PW4-Doctor, examined therein, has also adduced evidence that the injuries sustained by the respondent/claimant was grievous in nature. 10. Mere acquittal in the criminal Court would not absolve the liability of the driver/rider of the offending vehicle or the owner, as the case may be, to pay compensation and insurer, if the vehicle was insured. In the case on hand, the Claim has been made only against the owner of Bajaj motor cycle, bearing Registration No.37B-4842. Needless to say that in Motor Accident Claims Cases, preponderance of probability is the test to arrive at the conclusion regarding negligence. The standard of proof required is entirely different from the Criminal Court. At this juncture, it is also useful to extract the observations of a Division Bench of this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., v. K.Balasubramanian reported in 2007 (2) TN MAC 399, wherein, this Court held as follows: "It is a well settled proposition of law that the judgments of the Criminal Courts are neither binding on the Civil Court/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal no 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, the judgment of the Criminal Court becomes admissible and relevant in Civil proceedings and proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, not because it is a judgment of the Criminal Court, but as a document containing an admission. Of Course, admissions are not conclusive proof of the facts admitted therein. Of Course, admissions are not conclusive proof of the facts 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." Testing the finding with regard to negligence, on the principles of preponderance of probability, there is no concrete evidence for reversal. Hence, the same is confirmed. 11. In the light of the above discussion, and the clear evidence adduced before the Claims Tribunal, establishing the involvement of the motor cycle, rash and negligent found against the 1st respondent, cannot be said to be manifestly illegal, warranting interference. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that there is an error in fixing negligence, cannot be countenanced. Insofar as the nature of injuries are concerned, the respondent/claimant has produced several documents stated supra to prove that she sustained grievous injuries. PW3Doctor has assessed the extent of disablement as 13%. Altogether, the Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.45,355/- as compensation with interest @9% per annum, from the date of claim, till the date of realisation, as hereunder: Permanent disability -Rs.13,000/- Pain and suffering -Rs.15,000/- Medical Expenses -Rs.14,855/- Nutrition -Rs. 1,500/- Transportation -Rs. 1,000/- Total -Rs.45,355/- 12. The overall quantum of compensation cannot be said to be grossly excessive, warranting interference. In view of the above discussion, the finding of negligence fixed on the 1st appellant and the quantum of compensation awarded to the respondent/claimant are sustained. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed. 13. Consequent to the dismissal of the appeal, the appellants are directed to deposit the entire award amount, with proportionate accrued interest and costs, less the statutory deposit, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.1121 of 1999 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (III Additional Subordinate Judge), Coimbatore, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not deposited earlier. At the time of filing of Claim petition, in the year 1999, the respondent/claimant, who was minor, aged 7 years, at the time of accident, would have attained the age of majority. At the time of filing of Claim petition, in the year 1999, the respondent/claimant, who was minor, aged 7 years, at the time of accident, would have attained the age of majority. No sooner the compensation amount is deposited to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.1121 of 1999 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (III Additional Subordinate Judge), Coimbatore, it is open to the respondent/claimant to take out necessary application, to discharge the guardian and seek for withdrawal.