New India Assurance Company Limited vs Petchiammal and Others

D. Hariparanthaman, J.—This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree made in M.C.O.P. No. 1047 of 2000, dated 24.11.2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, I Additional District Court, Madurai.

Thiru. Madasamy rode T.V.S.50 vehicle bearing registration No. TN-45-D-2512, on 22.10.1999 from Vaiyampatti to Ellaiyamman Kovilpatti, on Dindigul-Tiruchi main road. Mr. Rakkiah was travelling as a pillion rider. At 10.00 p.m., an Ambassador car bearing registration No. TN-02-A-5459 dashed against TVS 50 and the pillion rider died due to the accident. The legal representatives of the deceased filed M.C.O.P. No. 1047 of 2000 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I Additional District Court), Madurai, claiming Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation. The Tribunal passed an award dated 24.11.2004 granting Rs. 82,000/- as compensation with 9% interest and costs. The appellant Insurance Company questions the award disputing their liability.

Heard, Mr. R. Srinivasan, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. N. Sathish Babu, learned Counsel for the respondents.

The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that while it is stated in the First Information Report relating to the accident that one TATA Sumo involved in the accident and it is stated in the accident register filed before the Criminal Court that an Ambassador car with registration No. TN-02-A-5495 involved in the accident, the Tribunal committed error in holding that the Ambassador car with registration No. TN-02-A-5459 that was insured with the appellant involved in the accident.

On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the claimants submits that the rider of TVS 50, who was an eye-witness was examined besides examining another eye witness as P.W.2. Both the eye-witnesses categorically deposed that the Ambassador car with registration No. TN-02-A-5459 involved in the accident. The learned Counsel further submits that the Motor Vehicle Inspector''s report also corroborates the same. The report says that the Ambassador car with registration No. TN-02-A-5459 involved in the accident. Immediately after the accident, the TATA Sumo took the rider as well as the pillion rider to the hospital. At that time, the pillion rider was in an unconscious state. The Tribunal considered in detail and recorded a finding that the Ambassador car with registration No. TN-02-A-5459 was involved in the accident. It is submitted that no interference is called for.

Heard the learned Counsel for both sides and perused the records.

The learned Counsel for the respondents took me through the oral deposition of the eye-witnesses and also the relevant documents. It is true that there is a confusion relating to the vehicle that caused the accident. It is stated in the First Information Report that TATA Sumo bearing with registration No. TN-7-D-6858 involved in the accident. In the charge sheet, it is stated that the Ambassador car bearing with registration No. TN-02-A-5494 involved in the accident. However all these issues were dealt in detail by the Tribunal. The Tribunal categorically held that the mentioning of TATA Sumo car could be ignored, as the persons were taken by the said TATA Sumo immediately after the accident and those persons were in unconscious state immediately after the accident. The Tribunal also categorically found that the Motor Vehicle Inspector''s report noted that the Ambassador Car with registration No. TN-02-A-5459 involved in the accident. The following passage from paragraph 16 of the award is hereunder:

16... In the charge sheet, Ex.P.2, there is error in respect of the vehicle number. As per Ex.P.5, copy of judgment, the driver of the vehicle mentioned in the charge sheet, appeared before the Judicial Magistrate, admitted his guilt of rash and negligent driving and for causing death of the deceased. It appears, there is discrepancy in respect of vehicle number. R.W.2, constable attached to Viampatti Police station, in cross-examination admitted that he had not produced case diary before the Court. Only on perusal of case diary, it would be ascertained as to how the vehicle number mentioned in the charge sheet was involved in the accident. Without ascertaining the case diary, it cannot be presumed how the vehicle number mentioned in the charge sheet was involved in the accident. The mistake occurred in the charge sheet, will not affect the case of the petitioner, as the Motor Vehicles'' Inspector after physically verifying the vehicle, issued inspection report which has to be taken into consideration. P.W.2, Thiru Muthan, in his evidence categorically stated that the vehicle number mentioned in the M.V.I. report was involved in the accident. P.W.3, Thiru Madasamy, who was driving the TVS 50 vehicle in his evidence stated that after some time of the accident, a Tata Sumo vehicle came in which himself and the deceased were taken to Government Hospital, Manapparai. As he was in an unconscious stage due to injury sustained by him, he would have mistakenly given complaint before Police stating that the vehicle in which he was taken to hospital was involved in the accident. On perusal of oral evidence of P.W.2, eye witness to the accident and on perusal of the above exhibits, it is evident that the Ambassador car bearing Registration No. TN-02-A-5459 was involved in the accident and the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of first respondent''s driver and hence this point is answered accordingly.

The aforesaid discussion made in detail by the Tribunal makes it very clear that the Tribunal had gone into the entire materials placed before it and recorded a categorical finding that the ambassador car bearing registration No. TN-02-A-5459 involved in the accident.

In these circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the said finding. This is the only contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant and no other contentions were raised by the appellant.

Hence this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal fails and it is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. No costs.