Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 3570 (MAD)

N. Vedanayagam v. Thangasamy

2018-10-05

V.M.VELUMANI

body2018
JUDGMENT V.M. Velumani, J. All these appeals are arising out of the very same accident and the same are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The parties are referred to as per their rank in the claim petitions. 3. These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been filed to set aside the award dated 10.12.2010, passed in M.C.O.P.Nos.1573, 1574 and 1575 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Court/Fast Track Court No.2) Madurai. 4. The appellants/claimants have filed claim petitions in M.C.O.P.Nos.1573 to 1575 of 2008, claiming a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Only), Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) and Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) as compensation respectively, for the injuries sustained by them in the accident that took place on 23.06.2008. 5. The first respondent has filed counter statement before the Tribunal and contended that the accident did not take place as alleged by the appellants. The claim petitions were not maintainable for the reason that the appellants have not impleaded the owner and insurer of the mini lorry, in which the appellants have travelled. Therefore, the same were liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. In any event, the vehicle was insured with the second respondent. 6. The second respondent filed statement of objections before the Tribunal and contended that the lorry had been driven on the road against the policy conditions. The appellants have travelled in the mini lorry as unauthorised passengers. The accident occurred in the middle of the road and the driver of the appellants' lorry has contributed negligence to the accident. The second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. 7. Before the Tribunal, the appellants examined themselves as P.W.1 to P.W.3, R.Ganesan, Panneerselvam Dr.Chinnadurai and Sriram were examind as P.W.4 to P.W.7 and filed 18 documents and the same were marked as Exs.P1 to P18. The respondents did not examine any person and mark any documents. 8. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, both oral and documentary evidence, held that the appellants have not proved that they have travelled as owners of the goods and exonerated the second respondent/Insurance Company and considering the nature of injuries, awarded a sum of Rs. 1,63,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Sixty Three Thousand Only), Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) and Rs. 8. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, both oral and documentary evidence, held that the appellants have not proved that they have travelled as owners of the goods and exonerated the second respondent/Insurance Company and considering the nature of injuries, awarded a sum of Rs. 1,63,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Sixty Three Thousand Only), Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) and Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) as compensation to the appellants respectively, directing the first respondent to pay the same. 9. Not being satisfied with the award, the appellants have come out with the present appeals. 10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants in all appeals and the respondents and perused the materials available on record. 11. From the materials on record, it is seen that the appellants examined themselves as P.W.1 to P.W.3 and P.W.1 has stated that he has travelled in the mini lorry along with 10 persons. PW.2 has stated that he had travelled along with 10 persons to attend the death ceremony. P.W.3 has stated that he had travelled along with 10 persons to attend cooking work. From the evidence of the appellants, it is seen that the appellants have not proved that they had travelled in the goods vehicle as owner of the goods. It is seen that 10 persons had travelled in the mini lorry to attend the death ceremony. The Tribunal properly appreciating the evidence of PW.1 to P.W.3 and following the well settled judicial pronouncement, exonerated the second respondent/Insurance Company from its liability and directed the first respondent to pay compensation. 12. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned First Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai, in M.C.O.P.Nos.1912 to 1914 of 2008 dated 24.11.2010, filed by the other claimants, who travelled in the same vehicle and sustained injuries in the very same accident, held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation, will not advance the case of the appellants, as in the present case, the learned District Judge has appreciated the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 and exonerated the Insurance Company. There is no error in the finding of the Tribunal, warranting interference by this Court. 13. In the result, these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed. No costs.