Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a motor accident that occurred on 13.06.2022 at about 11.15 p.m. on the Tirunelveli–Kanyakumari National Highway. The deceased was riding a two-wheeler with a pillion rider, Muthuraj. According to the appellant-Insurance Company, the deceased entered the carriageway meant for vehicles proceeding in the opposite direction to reach a petrol bunk for refuelling, and the insured vehicle (Registration No. AP-03-TL-2669) hit the two-wheeler, resulting in the death of the rider and injuries to the pillion rider. The Nanguneri Police registered a case in Crime No.164 of 2022 under Sections 279, 337, and 304-A IPC. The parents of the deceased filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tirunelveli. The Insurance Company filed a counter denying negligence and contending that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent riding of the deceased. The Tribunal examined P.W.1 and P.W.2 on behalf of the claimants and marked Exhibits P1 to P12, while the respondents examined R.W.1 and R.W.2 and marked Exhibits R1 to R8. The Tribunal fixed negligence on the driver of the insured vehicle and awarded compensation of Rs.21,51,200/- to the claimants. The Insurance Company appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the finding of negligence. The High Court considered the evidence, including the FIR, rough sketch, and deposition of witnesses, and found that the Tribunal's conclusion was based on evidence and not perverse. The Court noted that the Insurance Company did not examine the driver of the insured vehicle to prove contributory negligence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the award of the Tribunal was confirmed.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Claims - Negligence - Appreciation of Evidence - The appellant-Insurance Company challenged the Tribunal's finding of negligence on the driver of the insured vehicle, contending that the deceased entered the wrong side of the road. The Court held that the Tribunal, after considering oral and documentary evidence including FIR, rough sketch, and deposition of witnesses, concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the insured vehicle driver. The Court found no perversity in the finding and dismissed the appeal. (Paras 1-6) B) Motor Accident Claims - Contributory Negligence - Burden of Proof - The Insurance Company alleged contributory negligence by the deceased but failed to produce any independent witness or evidence to prove that the deceased was solely negligent. The Court noted that the Tribunal's finding was based on evidence and the Insurance Company did not examine the driver of the insured vehicle. (Paras 4-5) C) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173 - Appeal against Award - Scope of Interference - The Court reiterated that the appellate court should not interfere with findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. Since the Tribunal's finding was supported by evidence, the appeal was dismissed. (Para 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Tribunal's finding of negligence on the driver of the insured vehicle is perverse and liable to be set aside in appeal.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in M.C.O.P. No.990 of 2022 dated 12.08.2025 is confirmed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Law Points
- Negligence
- Motor Accident Claims
- Contributory Negligence
- Appreciation of Evidence
- Interference with Findings of Fact
