Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2578 (MAD)

K. Aboobacker Siddique v. V. Meenakshi

2018-08-21

V.M.VELUMANI

body2018
JUDGMENT : The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 13.08.2010 made in M.C.O.P.No.93 of 2008 on the file of the Ivth Additional Sub-Judge (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Madurai. 2. The appellant is the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.93 of 2008. He filed the said claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that took place on 24.10.2006. According to the appellant, on that day, at 7.00 p.m., when he was riding a motorcycle at a moderate speed, a lorry was going in front of him slowly, after giving signal, the appellant tried to overtake the lorry. At that time, a two wheeler driven in the opposite direction by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motorcycle and caused the accident. The appellant has sustained multiple injuries and taken treatment as in-patient in the hospital. The appellant, on the above averments, filed the claim petition. The respondents 1 and 2 filed a separate counter statement and denied all the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent riding by the appellant and the respondents are not liable to pay any compensation and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 3. Before the Tribunal, the appellant examined himself as P.W.1 and examined two other witnesses as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked 20 documents as Exs.P1 to P20. On the side of the respondents, the rider of the TVS Scooty bearing Registration No.TN 58 J - 2109 was examined as R.W.1. The respondents did not mark any documents. 4. The Tribunal, considering the pleadings, especially the evidence of R.W.1, Exs.P1, P2, P4 and P5, dismissed the claim petition holding that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent riding by the appellant. In view of the said finding, the Tribunal did not decide the quantum of compensation payable to the appellant. Against the said order, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent riding by the rider of the motorcycle belonging to the first respondent, who has also contributed the negligence for the accident. Against the said order, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent riding by the rider of the motorcycle belonging to the first respondent, who has also contributed the negligence for the accident. He further contended that overtaking of heavy vehicle is not an offence and the Tribunal erred in fixing the negligence on the part of the appellant alone based on the charge sheet filed against him. 6. No representation for the first respondent. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent contended that the Tribunal appreciated the evidence let in by the parties and concluded that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent riding by the appellant, by giving reasons for the same and prayed for dismissal of the same. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the second respondent. 9. It is an admitted case that the accident occurred when the appellant was trying to overtake a lorry. According to the appellant, the rider of the two wheeler, who was in a rash and negligent manner, coming in the opposite direction, dashed against the motorcycle, in which the appellant was riding and caused accident. 10. From the materials on record, it is seen that F.I.R. was lodged against the first respondent. The police after investigation, has a laid charge sheet against the appellant. As per the charge sheet, the appellant is responsible for the accident. The Tribunal, considering the documents Ex.P1 - F.I.R., Ex.P2 - Charge sheet, P.Ws.4 and 5, Motor vehicle Inspectors report and evidence of R.W.1, held that the appellant is responsible for the accident. There is no error in the said finding warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs.