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.