Madras High Court
The Branch Manager vs G.Raghavan on 23 April, 2008
Author: G.Rajasuria
Bench: G.Rajasuria
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23/04/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA C.M.A.(MD) No.763 of 2001 The Branch Manager, M/s.National Insurance Co. Ltd., No.8, Thiru-Ney Kulam North Street, Thallakulam, Madurai-2. .. Appellant Vs 1.G.Raghavan 2.K.Gopal 3.The Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 77/78, South Ratha Veedhi, Sivakasi, Kamarajar District. 4.A.Bose .. Respondents Prayer Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated 20.09.2000 passed in MCOP.No.69 of 1999 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum the Sub Judge, Sivakasi. !For Appellant ... Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan ^For Respondents ... Mr.M.Michael Bharathi for R.1 Mr.K.Murugesan for R.3. :JUDGMENT
This appeal is focussed as against the Judgment and Decree dated 20.09.2000 passed in MCOP.No.69 of 1999 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum the Sub Judge, Sivakasi.
2. Heard both sides.
3. Animadverting upon the liability fixed on the appellant/fourth respondent, the National Insurance Company, who happened to be the insurer of the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 59-E 8881, filed this appeal on various grounds; the pith and marrow of them, would run thus:
The accident occurred due to collision of two vehicles and one of which was insured with the appellant herein. The injured was actually travelling in the Maxi Cab bearing Registration No.TN.67-Z 7168 which was insured with the third respondent herein. The criminal Court's finding relating to the guilt of the driver of the vehicle insured with the appellant herein, was ignored by the Tribunal and simply fixed the liability at the rate of 50% each on the drivers of the said two vehicles concerned.
4. The point for consideration is as to whether the Tribunal was justified in fixing 50% liability on the driver of the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 59-E 8881 which was insured with the appellant herein?
5. The learned Counsel for the appellant placing reliance on the grounds of appeal, would develop his argument that the criminal Court's finding that the driver of the other vehicle bearing Registration No.TN.67-Z 7168, was guilty, should not have been ignored by the Tribunal. In this connection, the learned Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the decision of the Karnataka High Court in L.N.Prakash v. United India Insurance Co. reported in AIR 1996 KARNATAKA 75 to buttress and fortify his proposition. An excerpt from it, would run thus:
"12. The Madras High Court in the case of Govind Singh v. A.S.Kailasam, 1975 Acc CJ, 215:(AIR 1975 Mad 65) held as under:
"The admission of the driver made before a Criminal Court that the accident was committed by his rash and negligent driving shifts the legal burden on the driver to show that such an admission if at all, was made by extraneous motive."
The Madras High Court has not accepted the story presented by the driver that his plea of guilt before the Criminal Court was not one of truth but was one of convenience, viz., to avoid making frequent visits to the Court to defend the case. This explanation is hardly convincing and at any rate cannot be allowed to be successfully projected. An admission against his interest made either before the Tribunal or elsewhere has got be taken into account in rendering a decision on the relative stand taken by the parties in the controversy."
6. It appears, the learned Judge of the Karnataka High Court disagreed with the decision of this Court in Govind Singh v. A.S.Kailasam reported in 1975 Acc CJ, 215 : AIR 1975 Mad 65. But, I would like to agree with the said earlier decision of this Court which is based on aposteriori approach rather than apriori approach. The practicability and reality behind certain admission of guilt by the drivers in criminal cases should be visualised and with a pinch of salt, such admissions should be taken in other proceedings. The Tribunal by applying its mind independently after scanning the evidence arrived at the conclusion that both the drivers were equally liable for causing the accident. Furthermore, so far as this case is concerned, in the wake of the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in T.O.Anthony v. Karvarnan and others reported in JT 2008 (3) SC 297, such apportionment of liability is not warranted.
7. The perusal of the aforesaid decision would leave no doubt in the mind of the Court that this is a case where the contributory negligence is involved as the claimants are the legal representatives of the deceased, third party who travelled in one of the vehicles namely bearing Registration No.TN.67-Z 7168, which was insured with the third respondent Insurance Company.
8. In my considered opinion, the accident occurred due to the composite negligence of both the drivers as there was head-on-collision between the vehicles on the High way and both the vehicles also got damaged.
9. As such, the finding of the Tribunal warrants no interference and I could see no merit in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. No costs.
rsb To The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Sub Judge, Sivakasi.