The Managing Director vs Lalitha

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 14849 Mad
Judgement Date : 6 September, 2022

Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs Lalitha on 6 September, 2022
                                                                                  C.M.A.No.4233 of 2019


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                  DATED: 06.09.2022

                                                       CORAM

                                     THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA

                                                C.M.A.No.4233 of 2019
                                                          and
                                    C.M.P.No.23974 of 2019 and Cros.Obj.No.6 of 2021

                     C.M.A.No.4233 of 2019

                     The Managing Director,
                     Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
                     Villupuram.                                             ... Appellant

                                                          Vs
                     1.Lalitha
                     2.Mani
                     3.Sangeetha
                     4.Shankar                                               ... Respondents

Cros.Obj.No.6 of 2021 in C.M.A.No.4233 of 2019

1.Lalitha

2.Mani

3.Sangeetha

4.Shankar ... Cross Objectors Vs The Managing Director, 1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.4233 of 2019 Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Villupuram. ... Respondent Prayer in C.M.A.No.4233 of 2019: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and Decree passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Ariyalur made in M.C.O.P.No.352 of 2012, dated 29.11.2012. Prayer in Cros.Obj.No.6 of 2021: Cross Objection filed under Section 41 Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Code against the Judgment and Award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (ADJ) Ariyalur in M.C.O.P.No.352 of 2012, dated 29.11.2012.

For Appellant in C.M.A.No.4233 of 2019 & Respondent in Cros.Obj.No.6 of 2021 : M/s.S.Shanthakumari For Respondents in C.M.A.No.4233 of 2019 & Cross Objectors in : Mr.J.Hariharan Cros.Obj.No.6 of 2021 for M/s.S.Kaithamalai Kumaran COMMON JUDGEMENT The Transport Corporation has filed this appeal challenging the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Authority oblique Additional District Judge, Ariyalur in M.C.O.P.No.352 of 2012 on the ground that though the appellant's bus was not involved in the accident, 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.4233 of 2019 liability has been mulcted on the appellant-Transport Corporation.

2.The Cross Objection has been filed by the respondents seeking an enhancement of the compensation.

3.The facts in brief are as follows :-

The petitioners had filed the above claim petition seeking compensation of a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- for the death of one Satheesh @ Satheeshkumar, who is the son of the petitioners 1 and 2 and brother of petitioners 3 and 4 in a road accident on 12.02.2011.

4. They would submit that on the said date at about 04.00 p.m., when the said Satheesh was riding his Bajaj Discovery motorcycle at Jayankondam to Virudhachalam main road, the bus bearing Registration No.TN-32-N-2447 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the deceased Satheesh near Nathan Radio shop, the deceased was thrown out of his motorcycle and the right side wheel of the bus ran 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.4233 of 2019 over him and he died on the spot.

5.It is the case of the petitioners that the said Satheesh was working as a fitter in Singapore in a construction company earning a monthly income of Rs.40,000/-. Therefore, they sought for compensation from the respondent-Transport Corporation.

6.The respondent-Transport Corporation had filed a counter inter- alia denying the involvement of the respondent's bus in the accident and it was the case of the respondent that the respondent's bus was on its trip from Virudhachalam to Jayankondam. The driver of the bus drove at a moderate speed and keeping to the left side. When the bus was taking a turn on a curve on the road, the motorcycle driven by the deceased Satheesh tried to over take the bus on the curve. As a result of which, the motorcycle collided with the bus and on account of the impact, both the driver and the motorcycle fallen down near right back wheel of the bus, as a result of which, he got ran over. The respondent-Transport Corporation was no way 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.4233 of 2019 responsible for the accident. Therefore, they prayed to dismiss the claim.

7.The Tribunal below by its award dated 29.11.2012 held that the accident had occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of both the deceased Satheesh as well as the driver of the bus and awarded a compensation of a sum of Rs.8,10,000/-.

8.Challenging the award holding them liable, the Transport Corporation has filed the above appeal and seeking an enhancement, the petitioners are before this Court by way of Cross Objection.

9.Heard the learned counsels on either side and perused the materials available on record.

10.A perusal of the evidence of P.W.2, who is an eye witness would indicate that the driver of the appellant-Transport Corporation's bus was driving the same at a moderate speed and that the accident took place on a 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.4233 of 2019 curve of the road. In addition to this admission, a perusal of the FIR given by the pillion rider of the motorcycle would clearly show that the deceased Satheesh was the one who had driven in a rash and negligent manner, who attempted to over take the bus without noticing another vehicle coming in the opposite direction. Had the deceased observed the basic traffic rules, which prohibits over taking at curve, the accident would not have happened.

11.It is only on account of the deceased over taking the bus without noticing the vehicle coming on the opposite direction which had resulted in the collusion between the two vehicles. It is on account of the impact and subsequent fall from the vehicle which had resulted in the accident and the death. There is no negligence on the part of the driver of the appellant's bus. The Tribunal has therefore clearly erred in holding the driver of the appellant's bus also negligent.

12.In the result, the Cross Objection filed by the claimants in 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.4233 of 2019 Cros.Obj.No.6 of 2021 is dismissed and the appeal filed by the Transport Corporation is allowed. The award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Ariyalur in M.C.O.P.No.352 of 2012, dated 29.11.2012 is set aside. No costs. Consequently, the connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.

06.09.2022 Index : Yes/No Speaking order/non-speaking order sp To

1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Ariyalur.

2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras. 7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.4233 of 2019 P.T.ASHA, J., sp C.M.A.No.4233 of 2019 and C.M.P.No.23974 of 2019 and Cros.Obj.No.6 of 2021 06.09.2022 8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis