BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 20/01/2010
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR
C.M.A.(MD)No.890 of 2001
and
C.M.P.Nos.11563 and 11564 of 2001
The United India Insurance Company Limited,
Madurai. ... Appellant/ 3rd Respondent
vs
1. Jayam ... Respondent/Petitioner
2. The Managing Director,
TamilNadu State Transport
Corporation,
Karaigudi.
3. Ramaswamy ... Respondents/
Respondents 1 & 2
PRAYER
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree dated 08.11.2000 made in M.C.O.P.No.50
of 1998, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Judge,
Ramanathapuram.
!For appellant ... Mr.N.Murugesan
^For respondents ... Mr.A.Sivaji
for R.1
For R.3 ... Mr.G.Dhakshnamoorthy
* * *
:JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company
challenging the award dated 08.11.2000 made in M.C.O.P.No.50 of 1998, on the
file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram.
2. The only contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant is
that the finding of the Tribunal with regard to contributory negligence on the
part of the driver of the Mahendra Van which was insured with the appellant
Insurance Company, is erroneous.
3. The accident occurred due to the collusion between Mahendra van and the
Transport Corporation bus.
4. Before the Tribunal, the claimant was examined as P.W.1 and the Doctor
as P.W.2. Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked. The driver of the Mahendra van, namely
Suri, was examined as R.W.1 and one Ayub khan as R.W.2, on behalf of the
transport Corporation. No document was marked on behalf of the appellant.
5. The Tribunal, after analyzing the oral evidence let in by the claimant
and that of the other witnesses mentioned above and after considering the
F.I.R., Observation Magazar, Motor Vehicle Inspector’s Report, was of the view
that there is no concrete material to point out that one or the other driver of
the vehicles was responsible for the accident. Therefore, the negligence was
apportioned on both the drivers. The appellant has not pointed out as to how the
driver of the other vehicle alone is responsible for the accident except the
plea.
6. There is no irregularity in the finding of the Tribunal as it is based
on records and evidence. This Court is unable to come to a different conclusion
regarding negligence. There is no merit in the appeal.
7. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is therefore dismissed. Consequently,
the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are dismissed. No costs.
ssl
To
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
The Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram.