Justice G.R. Swaminathan, Madras High Court
Rider Bound To Be Exuberant With Girlfriend Sitting Pillion: Madras High Court Reduces Motor Accident Compensation
|The Madras High Court was considering an appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act by an Insurance Company.
The Madras High Court has quantified the contributory negligence of a 19-year-old boy who died in a motor accident at 25% while observing that any rider is bound to be exuberant when his girlfriend is sitting in the pillion.
The High Court was considering an appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by an Insurance Company challenging the judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District (FTC)(FAC), Theni.
The Single Bench of Justice G.R. Swaminathan stated, “The following circumstances deserve to be taken note of. The occurrence had taken place a little past midnight. The deceased was a young man aged about 19 years. His girlfriend was sitting in the pillion. Any rider is bound to be exuberant when his girlfriend is sitting in the pillion.”
“We are of the view that the deceased also can be apportioned with contributory negligence. By his conduct, he had contributed to the occurrence”, it added.
Advocate K.R. Shivashankari represented the Petitioner while Advocate V.P. Rajan represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The victim Gopal was riding a two wheeler during night when it met with a head-on collision with the van which was insured by the appellant company. Gopal died on the spot. The pillion rider, a girl, also suffered injuries. A case came to be registered under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) of the IPC. The insurance company filed a counter opposing the claim. After considering the evidence on record, the Court below awarded compensation to the tune of Rs 25,54,000 with interest. A petition was also filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of Civil Procedure Code for receiving the rough sketch as additional evidence. The appeal thus came to be filed in such circumstances.
Reasoning
Dealing with the application for reception of additional evidence for consideration, the Bench noted that the rough sketch depicting the scene of accident was a relevant piece of evidence. The Bench found that the insurance company was not able to put its best foot forward as the trial took place during 2020 when the Covid-19 pandemic was at its height. “What is sought to be marked is only a certified copy of the rough sketch. It can be straight away received in the evidence as Ex.R1. It is not necessary to remit the matter for the purpose of marking this document alone. C.M.P.(MD)No.1731 of 2022 is allowed accordingly”, it added.
On a perusal of the rough sketch, the Bench noted that the accident was a head-on collision. The Bench found that the van was coming on the correct side and the two wheeler which was going on the wrong side (on the right side of the road). “Being on the right can be a traffic-wrong. The father of deceased had fairly conceded that his son was not having any driving license”, it added.
Thus Bench held that the deceased could be apportioned with contributory negligence. Quantifying the contributory negligence of the deceased at 25%, the Bench reduced the compensation and partly allowed the appeal.
Cause Title: The Branch Manager v. Nagapandi (Case No.: C.M.A.(MD)No.193 of 2022)
Appearance
Petitioner: Advocate K.R. Shivashankari
Respondent: Advocates V.P. Rajan, C. Jawahar Ravindran