(Prayer:-Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree dated 11.07.2006 passed in M.A.C.O.P.No.906 of 2000, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District and Sessions Court) (Fast Track Court No.1), Madurai.)
1. The appellant/United India Insurance Company has filed the present C.M.A(MD)No.407 of 2007, challenging the award passed inMACOP.No.906 of 2000, dated 11.07.2006, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District and Sessions Court) (Fast Track Court No.1), Madurai.
2. It is a case of an injury caused due to an accident took place on 08.09.1996 at about 10.00 p.m. near Kallikudi Nallamanaickenpatti. The injured victim filed an application seeking compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District and Sessions Court) (Fast Track Court No.1), Madurai, in MACOP.No.906 of 2000. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal awarded Rs.74,826/- as total compensation. Challenging the award, the appellant/United India Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal mainly on the ground that it was an accident between a Jeep and Lorry and the Lorry driver had not committed any negligence and the Tribunal has erroneously fixed the negligence part only on the lorry driver. In fact, the Jeep driver was also had committed an act of negligence and the Tribunal ought to have fixed the negligence of 50-50 both towards the driver of the Jeep and the driver of the Lorry.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposed the contentions of the appellant on the ground that the Tribunal was right in fixing the negligence aspect, in view of the fact that the lorry driver had committed the act of negligence and there was a delay on the part of the lorry driver even in giving complaint in the Police Station. Hence, the Tribunal had rightly considered the point of negligence and no interference is required.
4. Heard both sides.
5. Considering the rival submissions, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal in Issue No.1 had elaborately dealt these aspects. On reading of the findings of the Tribunal, it is clear that the accident took place on 08.09.1996 at 09.30 p.m., but the lorry driver alone had given a complaint on 09.09.1996 at about 6.00 a.m. Contrarily, the persons travelling in the Jeep got injured and immediately they were admitted in the hospital by taking advantage of the situation, the driver of the lorry had given false information to the Police Station and accordingly the F.I.R. was registered. On seeing the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal had came to the conclusion that the driver of the lorry had committed an act of negligence and due to his negligence the accident took place. Such being the categorical findings of the Tribunal, this Court is unable to see any reason to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal, since it is cogent and based on the deposition of the witnesses. Such being the situation, the present appeal filed by the appellant/United India Insurance Company deserves no consideration and accordingly, the award passed by the Tribunal in MCOP.No.906 of 2000, dated 11.07.2006, is confirmed and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/United India Insurance Company Limited had represented that the appellant has already been deposited the entire award amount with accrued interest. The first respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire award amount with accrued interest through RTGS, by filing necessary application before the Tribunal. No costs.