Madras High Court
The United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Mrs.S.Jaya Suriya on 19 November, 2012
Author: P.Devadass
Bench: P.Devadass
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19/11/2012 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.DEVADASS C.M.A.(MD) No.64 of 2011 & M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2011 The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Rep. by its Nagercoil Branch Office at Assisi Complex, Xavier Building, PWD. Office Road, Nagercoil, Nagercoil Village Agasteeswaram Taluk Kanyakumari District ... Appellant Vs. 1.Mrs.S.Jaya Suriya 2.T.Manikandan ... Respondents PRAYER Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 08.06.2010 made in M.C.O.P. No.212 of 2007 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Kanyakumari. !For Appellant ... Mr.I.Robert Chandrakumar for Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai ^For Respondent - 1 ... Mr.Ganapathi Raman :JUDGMENT
The insurer questions the determination of negligence made by the Tribunal, consequently, the award.
2. On 03.01.2007, at about 4 p.m., in the National HIgh way, in between Tirunelveli and Nagercoil, there was a road accident. In this, some of the occupants of a Maruti car died. Of course, one of them had providential escape, however, with multiple grievous injuries. She is the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.212 of 2007. She was totally awarded Rs.6,19,742/- by the Tribunal. She is the first respondent in this appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that since the Maruti car came driven on the wrong side, it hit against the insured mini lorry, thus, the road accident. The learned counsel for the appellant referred to the sketch map and would contend that the accident was solely due to the inept driving of the driver of the Maruti car.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the first respondent would contend that at the time of accident there was road widening work, in such circumstances, the Maruti car driver has to go to the right side, however, the mini lorry has no business to come to that side and hit against the Maruti car. Ex.P.4-Observation mahazar also demonstrates this. In the circumstances, the Tribunal has rightly fastened negligence on the part of the driver of the mini lorry.
5. I have considered the rival submissions. Perused the materials on record and gone through the impugned award.
6. On 03.01.2007, at about 4 p.m., at a place, in the National Highway between Tirunelveli and Nagercoil, near Ayaneri Bus Stop, there was a road accident. In this, two vehicles are involved. One is a Maruti car and the other one is a mini lorry. The mini lorry has been insured with the appellant. In the Maruti car, certain persons have travelled. Some of them have died in the accident. One S.Jaya Suriya sustained injuries. The Tribunal held that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver. In M.C.O.P.No.212 of 2007, the Tribunal awarded her compensation.
7. The Maruti car was driven by one Vincent, who has died in the road accident. Tirunelveli-Nagercoil Road is a National High Way. It is on the north-south direction from Tirunelveli. Ex.R1 is the Report of the Investigator. Along with it a Sketch Map also has been filed. In this case, the ocular witness is P.W.1-Jaya Suriya. She had deposed that the mini lorry driver drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. At the time of accident, the Maruti car was proceeding from north to south, that is to say, from Tirunelveli to Nagercoil. At about that time, the mini lorry came driven by its driver from south to north. There was road accident. The Tribunal referred to the said sketch map. Both the vehicles came from opposite direction. In the sketch map, the Maruti car has been shown on the right side of the road. The physical features noted in Ex.P4-Observation mahazar as well as in the sketch map indicates that at the time of accident widening of road work was going on. This has also been taken note of by the Tribunal. In the facts and circumstances, the Maruti car has go to the right side. But, certainly, the mini lorry has no business to come to that side from the other side of the road. The physical features mentioned in Ex.P4 and the sketch map speaks for itself (Res ipsa loquitur). In the circumstances, the Tribunal has rightly mulcted the lorry driver with negligence. Thus, no interference is called for.
8. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. The award of the Tribunal is confirmed. The appellant will deposit the entire amount, less amount, if any, already deposited. On such deposit, the first respondent is permitted to withdraw the entire amount, less amount, if any, already withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
smn To The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (District Judge), Kanyakumari.