Madras High Court
The Director Of Fire Service vs Palanisamy (Deceased) on 4 March, 2019
Author: V.M.Velumani
Bench: V.M.Velumani
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.03.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
C.M.A.No.1603 of 2019
and
C.M.P.No.4596 of 2019
1.The Director of Fire Service,
Egmore, Chennai.
2.The Divisional Fire Officer,
N.L.G. Division, Coimbatore. .. Appellants
Vs.
1.Palanisamy (deceased)
2.M.Balakrishnan
3.Subulakshmi
4.Bharathi
5.Nagamani
6.Murugesan
(RR3 to R6 brought on records as LR's of the
deceased R1 Vide Court order dated 04.01.2019
made in M.P.No.1 of 2008 and M.P.Nos.1 to 3
of 2015 in C.M.A.No.SR.64041 of 2006 .. Respondents
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated
21.02.2006 made in M.C.O.P.No.225 of 2005 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, II Additional Subordinate Court, Erode.
For Appellants : Mr.A.Devnarenderan,
Government Advocate (CS)
for Additional Government Pleader (CS)
For RR1, R3 to R6 : Mr.S.Kaithamalai Kumaran
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 21.02.2006 made in M.C.O.P.No.225 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Additional Subordinate Court, Erode.
2.The appellants are respondents 2 and 3 in M.C.O.P.No.225 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Additional Subordinate Court, Erode. The 1st respondent filed the above said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that took place on 23.12.2003. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the fire engine belonging to the appellants and directed both the appellants as well as the 2nd respondent jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.95,750/- as compensation to the 1 st respondent/claimant. Challenging the said award dated 21.02.2006 made in M.C.O.P.No.225 of 2005 granting compensation to the 1st respondent/claimant, the appellants have come out with the present appeal. http://www.judis.nic.in 3
3.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants contended that the accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving by the 2nd respondent herein/the driver of the appellants. The learned Government Advocate further contended that the fire engine belonging to the appellants was going to extinguish fire accident with siren and ringing bell. The 1st respondent on hearing siren turned his moped to mud road and dashed against the right side of the fire engine. The 2nd respondent/driver of the fire engine is not responsible for the accident. The accident occurred only due to negligence on the part of the 1st respondent. The F.I.R. lodged against the 2nd respondent herein was closed as mistake of fact and the Tribunal failed to consider Ex.B1/final report. In any event, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive for 25% disability and prayed for setting aside the award of the Tribunal.
4.Heard the learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 to 6 and perused the materials available on record.
5.From the materials available on record, it is seen that the appellants have stated in the counter statement that the 1 st respondent http://www.judis.nic.in 4 alone on hearing the siren and ringing the bell turned his moped to the mud road and slipped and dashed against the right hand side of the fire engine belonging to the appellants. The 2nd respondent examined as R.W.1 has given up the said complaint and deposed that there is no contact between the fire engine and moped driven by the 2 nd respondent. Such a stand taken by the 2nd respondent as R.W.1 is proved to be wrong as per Ex.A5/Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report. R.W.1 was not able to explain the damages to the right hand side of the indicator of the fire engine. The Tribunal considering the above fact held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by 2nd respondent and considering the evidence of P.W.2-Doctor and nature of injuries awarded compensation under different heads which is not excessive warranting interference by this Court.
6.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the amount awarded by the Tribunal as compensation to the 1st respondent/claimant, together with interest and costs is confirmed. Out of the award amount, the 3rd respondent being the wife of the 1st respondent is entitled to a sum of Rs.65,750/- and the respondents 4 to 6 are entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- each along with proportionate interest and costs. The appellants as well as 2nd respondent are directed http://www.judis.nic.in 5 to deposit the award amount jointly and severally along with interest and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.225 of 2005. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
04.03.2019 gbi/rst Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No To
1.The II Additional Subordinate Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Erode.
2.The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.
http://www.judis.nic.in 6 V.M.VELUMANI, J., gbi/rst C.M.A.No.1603 of 2019 and C.M.P.No.4596 of 2019 04.03.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in