National Insurance Company Limited v. Prakash Alias Udhayaprakash

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 12-06-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI National Insurance Company Limited Rep by its Manager, 157/1, Deepam Complex, Opposite Aavin Dairy, Bharathi Nagar, Near Vasavi college, Suriyampalayam Appellant Vs

1. Prakash Alias Udhayaprakash S/o Govindan, No.2/139, Mettukadai, Velan Nagar, Pallipalayam, Agraharam, Tiruchengode, Namakkal District 2.B.R.Balaji s/o Rangaraj, No.401, Salem Main Road, Komarapalayam, Tiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District Respondents PRAYER:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Sec. 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, praying to set aside the decree and judgment passed in MACT OP No.240 of 2019 dated 30.03.2023 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, IV Additional District and Sessions Court, Erode at Bhavani 1/6

For Appellant:

Ms. N.B.Sureka For Respondents:

Mr. Ma.P.Thangavel For R1 R-2 - No Appearance

JUDGMENT

The 2 nd respondent insurance company has filed the present appeal challenging the Award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 4 th Addl.

District and Sessions Judge, Erode at Bhavani in MCOP No.240 of 2019, dated 30.03.2023.

2.The case of petitioner is that on 12.04.2019 at about 06.15 p.m., when the petitioner riding his motorcycle bearing Regn. No.TN-54-Q-8833 on the left side of Komarapalayam to Katheri Pirivu Road towards east to west, nearing power office, at that time, a bus bearing Regn.No.TN-34-AC-1515 belong to 1 st respondent came in a opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner, hit the petitioner's vehicle and caused the accident. Due to which, the claimant sustained injuries, for which he underwent treatment in the hospital. Under these circumstances, the claim petition came to be filed before the Tribunal seeking for payment of compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. 2/6

3.The Tribunal on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, came to a conclusion that the accident had taken place only due to the negligence on the part of the bus driver. Having rendered such a finding, the Tribunal fixed the total compensation payable at Rs.2,14,760/- under various heads and the same was directed to be paid with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal, the 2 nd respondent Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal before this Court. 4.Heard and considered rival submissions made by learned counsel appearing for appellant and learned counsel appearing for 1 st respondent and perused the materials available on record.

5.The learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company would submit that on the date of alleged accident, the claimant/1 st respondent was under the influence of alcohol and driven the two wheeler in a rash and negligent manner, due to which he fell down on the right side. On seeing that, the driver of the bus stopped the vehicle. So, there is no negligence on the part of 1 st respondent vehicle. Since the driver was died in covid, the conductor of the bus was 3/6

examined as R.W.2 to prove the said fact, but the tribunal failed to appreciate the same and fixed only 20% contributory negligence on the side of petitioner as such is illegal and liable to be set aside.

6. By way of reply,the learned counsel for 1 st respondent/petitioner argues that the bus was driven in a wrong direction, thereby the accident was happened and there is no negligence on the part of petitioner as alleged by the appellant herein. But, as per the evidence of R.W.2, at the time of alleged accident, the claimant was under the influence of alcohol and even as per the final report given by the police marked as Ex.R1 shows that he was under the influence of alcohol. Furthermore, the petitioner was immediately admitted in the Government hospital, Komarapalayam and then shifted to private hospital, to prove the same, Government hospital AR copy was not produced. Therefore, the objections raised by the appellant is sustainable one, since because he was under the influence of alcohol, F.I.R. copy was not produced as such is not acceptable. Therefore, the contributory negligence on the part of claimant is to be taken into consideration. Accordingly, 40% of contributory negligence was fixed on him and 60% was fixed upon 1 st respondent and The compensation that has been 4/6

fixed under the other heads are reasonable and does not require the interference of this Court. The appellant insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation, less the amount already deposited, together with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The other directions issued by the Tribunal with regard to the mode of payment of compensation remains unaltered. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

12-06-2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes rpp To

1. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, IV Addl. District and Sessions Court, Erode at Bhavani.

2. Section Officer, VR Section, Madras High Court. 5/6

T.V.THAMILSELVI J.

rpp 12-06-2025 6/6