Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1123 (MAD)

A. Lakshmi v. P. P. Saravanan

2014-06-04

S.MANIKUMAR

body2014
Judgment : 1. According to the legal representatives of the deceased, that on 01/02.09.1997, about 02.30 hours, when a lorry, bearing Registration No.TN-28Y-2790, owned by the 1strespondent, insured with National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office No.I, 78, TVS Chetty Street, Erode-I, was driven cautiously, on Thirukovilur-Thiruvannamalai Main Road, near a place called Pavuthiram, due to some mechanical defects in the steering wheel assembly, and its connected parts, to the tie rod, which connects the front wheels, the said lorry could not be controlled by its driver and dashed against a tree. He died on the spot. It is the contention of the claimants/ appellants that the accident occurred only due to the mechanical defect. There was no rash and negligence driving of the lorry. A case in Crime No.440 of 1997 has been registered on the file of Veraiyur Police Station. The owner of the vehicle remained ex parte. 2. Opposing the claim, National Insurance Company limited, Erode-I, has denied the contention that the accident occurred only due to mechanical defect. They further submitted that the accident occurred only due to negligence of the driver. For the tortious act of the driver, they denied the liability to pay compensation. Without prejudice to the above, they disputed the age, avocation, income of the deceased and the quantum of compensation claimed, under various heads. 3. The Claims Tribunal framed the following issues for consideration: 1. Whether the accident occurred due to mechanical defects or not? 2. Whether the appellants/claimants are entitled to get compensation? 4. Before the Claims Tribunal, wife of the deceased examined herself as PW1 and reiterated the manner of accident. She is not an eye witness. PW2 is an auto driver examined on behalf of the appellants/claimants. Ex.P.1-First Information Report, Ex.P.2-Rough Sketch, Ex.P.3-Xerox copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report, Ex.P.4-Post-mortem Certificate and Ex.P.5-Legal Heirship Certificate, have been marked on the side of the claimants. No oral or documentary evidence has been adduced on the side of Insurance Company. 5. On evaluation of pleadings and evidence, the Claims Tribunal came to a conclusion that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the driver, since deceased. In the light of the above finding, the Claims Tribunal directed payment of Rs.50,000/- only to the appellants/claimants under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 6. 5. On evaluation of pleadings and evidence, the Claims Tribunal came to a conclusion that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the driver, since deceased. In the light of the above finding, the Claims Tribunal directed payment of Rs.50,000/- only to the appellants/claimants under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 6. Being aggrieved by the finding fixing negligence on the driver of the lorry, bearing Registration No.TN-28Y-2790, insured with the respondent - Insurance Company and the denial of compensation claimed, the present appeal has been filed. Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants assailed the finding of the Claims Tribunal reiterating that the accident occurred due to mechanical defect. He further submitted that the Claims Tribunal has failed to consider that the evidence of PW2, co-driver, would not lead to the conclusion that the vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner. For the abovesaid reasons, learned counsel for the appellants sought for reversal of the finding and accordingly, to compute the compensation due and payable to the legal representatives of the deceased. 7. While adverting to the above, perusal of the award shows that PW1, wife of the deceased, though adduced evidence to the effect that the accident occurred only due to mechanical defect, she has not seen the accident. PW2 is the codriver examined on behalf of the appellants/claimants. According to him, on the fateful day, the deceased travelled in the lorry, bearing Registration No.TN-28Y-2790, insured with National Insurance Company Limited, Erode-I. Though PW2 has deposed that if the tie rod was broken, the vehicle would be dragged on to some directions, and it would be difficult to control, no document has been filed to support the contention of the appellants/claimants that there was mechanical defect. Moreover, upon perusal of Ex.P.3-Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report, filed on behalf of the appellants/Claimants, the Claims Tribunal has observed that the Motor Vehicle Inspector has clearly stated that the accident did not occur due to mechanical defect. Had the accident occurred due to any mechanical defects as claimed, naturally, it would have been reflected in Ex.P.3-Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report. At this juncture, it is also noted that the accident has occurred on 01/02.09.1997 and Ex.P.2-Rough sketch drawn on the same day, i.e., 02.09.1997. Lorry involved in the accident was examined and that a reporthas been given on 03.09.1997 itself, without any delay. At this juncture, it is also noted that the accident has occurred on 01/02.09.1997 and Ex.P.2-Rough sketch drawn on the same day, i.e., 02.09.1997. Lorry involved in the accident was examined and that a reporthas been given on 03.09.1997 itself, without any delay. In Ex.P.3-Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report, the Motor Vehicle Inspector has only recorded that there was damage to the lorry. Added to that, the Claims Tribunal has also considered the contents of Ex.P.1-First Information Report, wherein, the Cleaner of the said Lorry has reported, as hereunder: “Tami” “On 01.09.1997, a lorry, bearing Registration No.TN-28Y-2790, proceeding from Pennadam to Arur, was driven by its driver Arumugham, with Cement bags. I travelled with him as a Cleaner. At 02.30 PM, when the lorry was proceeding near Pavuthiram Pudur, from Veraiyur to Thiruvannamalai Route, it was driven, in a high speed. I told him to go slow. All of a sudden, the said lorry hit a tamarind tree on the right side of the Road.” 8. Thus, while evaluating the oral and documentary evidence and placing reliance on the decision in Anil Tiwari v. Saheb Singhreported in 2001 ACJ 471 , the Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased and that it was not due to any mechanical defects. Though the learned counsel for the appellants sought for reversal of the finding, this Court is not inclined to accept the said contention, for the reason that the Claims Tribunal, cannot be said to have arrived at a finding without any basis. There is no perversity in the finding. 9. In the light of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned Judgment and Decree. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.