AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant against the award, dated 13.11.2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims",,
Tribunal (District and Sessions Judge (communal clashes Court) Madurai.,,
The case of the appellant is that the accident occurred on 12.8.2006 at about 3 p.m. near the junction of TPK-EP and Muthupatti Road,",,
byekara. At the time of accident, the deceased was riding his motor cycle NT 72 2041 along with his friend one Sentil Comber from Byekara",,
E.P.Main road to Mutthupatti from west to east. At that time, the respondent''s police van bearing Registration No.TN.59 G 0392 which was",,
coming from the opposite direction, in a rash and negligent manner, suddenly dashed against the bike. Due to the heavy impact, Pandi and pillion",,
rider-senthilkumar were thrown away and sustained grievous injuries. On the way to hospital, Pandi died. The accident happened only due to the",,
rash and negligent driving of the respondent''s vehicle against whom the traffic III police had registered a case in Cr.No.154/2006.,,
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that due to the sudden demise of the first petitioner''s husband, the petitioners were thrown to",,
poverty and the first appellant lost her companion at her young age, so also the minor appellants, apart from the valuable guidance and care of their",,
father. Further, the parents have also lost their lovable son. Hence, they pray for appropriate orders.",,
The second respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit in which it is stated that the vehicle involved in the accident did not belong to the first,,
respondent. Further, the rider and deceased Pandi were under the influence of alcoholic state and without proper driving license, the deceased",,
drove the vehicle in question in a rash and negligent manner and due to which, the accident occurred and therefore, the claimants are not entitled to",,
get any relief. The claim of the appellants are on the higher side on various heads and no proof has been filed as to the income of the deceased and,,
therefore, the petitioner are not entitled for any heads.",,
Before the tribunal, on the side of claimants, two witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked four documents as Exs.P.1 to P.4 and",,
on the side of the respondents, one witness was examined and no documents were marked by the respondent police.",,
After considering all the materials and evidence, the Court below dismissed the claim of the claimant and therefore, the appellants are before this",,
Court.,,
The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the Court below without appreciating the oral and documentary evidence,,
available on record has wrongly come to the conclusion that the respondents are not liable to pay compensation to the appellants and hence, he",,
prays for appropriate orders.,,
Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Court below found that the appellant was solely responsible for the",,
accident as he was driving the vehicle in a drunken mood and therefore, dismissed the claim of the appellant and thus, no interference is required in",,
the judgment of the Court below and prays for the dismissal of this civil miscellaneous appeal.,,
Heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides and perused the materials available on record.,,
In the case on hand, P.W.2 has been examined as an eye witness and he has deposed that on the fateful day, he and the deceased drove the",,
vehicle slowly and in the left side of the road from E.B main road to Muthpatti and at that time, the respondents van bearing registration",,
No.T.No.59 G 0392, the police van driven by its driver, in a rash and negligent manner without following the traffic rules, all of a sudden hit the",,
two wheeler and the deceased and P.W.2 were thrown out from the spot and sustained injuries. He further deposed that the police van came to,,
the right side and caused the accident. However, the learned Judge did not consider the crucial evidence of the eye witness, namely, P.W.2, but",,
based on the First Information Report, she proceeded the case and delivered the judgment. It is apt to mention that nobody can be judge of his",,
own cause. But, it is unfortunate in the present case that the First Information Report has been registered to suit the needs of the respondent police",,
by conveniently not preparing the rough sketch and map.,,
Before the Court below, the claimants pleaded that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the second",,
respondent''s driver, to which the Court below was of the view that it is because of the deceased that the accident had occurred. For arriving at",,
such conclusion, the court below had adopted the peculiar view stating that the appellants have not marked rough sketch to show that the accident",,
had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent. As per the Police-Order 244, it is stated about ""Sketch Map"" in which it is",,
stated that it is incumbent on the Investigating Officer to prepare these maps or plans of scenes of crime to be attached to the relevant case diaries.,,
The Investigating Officer has also given discretion in preparing plans of scenes of occurrence in any other case not listed in the first part of this rule.,,
The sketch map has invariably to accompany the charge sheet in the cases mentioned in sub-clause (a) of this rules. The map or plan has to be,,
drawn to a scale as it may have to be exhibited in court and it shall bear the signature of reason that the appellants have not filed protest petition,,
against the First Information Report cannot be accepted for the reason that a person who is in a distressed mind cannot be expected to go and file,,
a protest petition against the First Information Report. Even then, that cannot be the reason to deny the compensation.",,
On assumption, the learned Judge presumed that the deceased would have been in alcoholic state, though in the postmortem report there was",,
no mention that the deceased was in an alcoholic state. The learned Judge further observed that due to the delay in the postmortem, the alcohol",,
would have been digested in the intestine within three hours. Such idealistic view adopted by the Court below is unfortunate without basing on any,,
evidence and therefore, it cannot be sustained in the eye of law.",,
In my considered opinion, the respondent police failed to do their statutory duty to prepare rough sketch just to escape the clutches of law.",,
Therefore, the contention that P.W.2 has given the compliant and signed the First Information Report cannot be accepted for the reason that as",,
already pointed out earlier, the burden of proof lies on the respondent police to substantiate the fact that the deceased was caused for the accident,",,
Sl. No.,Head(s),Amount awarded by this Court
1.,Loss of Income,"Rs. 9,60,000/-
2.,Loss of Consortium to 1st Claimant/Wife of the deceased,"Rs. 1,00,000/-
3.,Loss of Love and Affection to each minor children,"Rs. 75,000/-
4.,Loss of future prospectus,"Rs.50,000/-
5.,Funeral Expenses,"Rs. 5,000
,Total,"Rs.11,90,000