S. Esakkimuthu Vs. S. Raju and Another - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1186953
CourtChennai Madurai High Court
Decided OnNov-23-2016
Case NumberC.M.A (MD) No. 1455 of 2006
JudgeS.M. Subramaniam
AppellantS. Esakkimuthu
RespondentS. Raju and Another
Excerpt:
(prayer:-civil miscellaneous appeal filed under section 173 of the motor vehicles act, 1988against the judgment and decree of the learned motor accidents claims tribunal (first additional sub-judge), tirunelveli, passed in m.c.o.p.no.537 of 2003, dated 30.06.2005.) judgment: 1. the appellant/claimant has filed the present c.m.a(md)no.1455 of 2006, challenging the award passed inmcop.no.537 of 2003, dated 30.06.2005, on the file of the motor accidents claims tribunal, (first additional sub-judge), tirunelveli. 2. the present case on hand, it is a case of an accident occurred on 08.03.2003 at about 06.00 hours in palayamkottai-ambasamudram road, and at that time the ambassador car dashed with two cows, which crossed the road and one cow got died and another cow got injured. the owner of the cows filed an application seeking compensation before the motor accident claims tribunal, (first additional sub-judge), tirunelveli in mcop.no.537 of 2003, and the tribunal, considering the facts and the circumstances of the case rejected the claim on the ground that the claim petition is not maintainable under section 145(e) of the motor vehicles act. 3. the learned counsel appearing for the respondent opposed the appeal by stating that the tribunal was right in rejecting the claim since the cows were not transported as goods in the vehicle and it was the ambassador car which dashed with the cows and out of that one cow died and another got injured. therefore, the order of the tribunal rejecting the claim petition is in accordance with the provision of motor vehicles act and the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 4. section 2(13) of the motor vehicles act defines goods which includes livestock, and anything carried by a vehicle except living persons, but does not include luggage or personal effects carried in a motor car or the personal luggage of passengers travelling in the vehicle. the definition itself it is clear that a livestock carried by a vehicle, the facts on hand is unambiguous that the ambassador car was not carrying the cow and in fact it dashed with the cow, while the cow was crossing the road. 5. further section 145(e) of the motor vehicles act enumerates "property" includes goods carried in the motor vehicle, roads, bridges, culverts, causeways, trees, posts and mile-stones. as per the above said provision, if a cow was carrying in a goods vehicle and caused accident then the insurance company is liable to pay compensation, but not otherwise. therefore, the findings and decisions of the tribunal that the claim petition under the insurance policy is not maintainable is in accordance with the provisions of the motor vehicles act as stated above, and the order is confirmed. therefore, the present appeal deserves no consideration and accordingly, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. no costs.
Judgment:

(Prayer:-Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988against the judgment and decree of the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (First Additional Sub-Judge), Tirunelveli, passed in M.C.O.P.No.537 of 2003, dated 30.06.2005.)

Judgment:

1. The appellant/claimant has filed the present C.M.A(MD)No.1455 of 2006, challenging the award passed inMCOP.No.537 of 2003, dated 30.06.2005, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (First Additional Sub-Judge), Tirunelveli.

2. The present case on hand, it is a case of an accident occurred on 08.03.2003 at about 06.00 hours in Palayamkottai-Ambasamudram Road, and at that time the Ambassador Car dashed with two cows, which crossed the road and one cow got died and another cow got injured. The owner of the cows filed an application seeking compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (First Additional Sub-Judge), Tirunelveli in MCOP.No.537 of 2003, and the Tribunal, considering the facts and the circumstances of the case rejected the claim on the ground that the claim petition is not maintainable under Section 145(e) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent opposed the appeal by stating that the Tribunal was right in rejecting the claim since the cows were not transported as goods in the vehicle and it was the Ambassador car which dashed with the cows and out of that one cow died and another got injured. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal rejecting the claim petition is in accordance with the provision of Motor Vehicles Act and the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.

4. Section 2(13) of the Motor Vehicles Act defines goods which includes livestock, and anything carried by a vehicle except living persons, but does not include luggage or personal effects carried in a motor car or the personal luggage of passengers travelling in the vehicle. The definition itself it is clear that a livestock carried by a vehicle, the facts on hand is unambiguous that the Ambassador car was not carrying the cow and in fact it dashed with the cow, while the cow was crossing the road.

5. Further Section 145(e) of the Motor Vehicles Act enumerates "property" includes goods carried in the motor vehicle, roads, bridges, culverts, causeways, trees, posts and mile-stones. As per the above said provision, if a cow was carrying in a goods vehicle and caused accident then the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation, but not otherwise. Therefore, the findings and decisions of the Tribunal that the claim petition under the Insurance policy is not maintainable is in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act as stated above, and the order is confirmed. Therefore, the present appeal deserves no consideration and accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs.