Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs P.Ramasamy on 28 April, 2021
C.M.A.No.1929 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.04.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
C.M.A.No.1929 of 2020
and
C.M.P.No.14234 of 2020
The Managing Director,
Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation
(Kumbakonam) Ltd,
Periyamilaguparai, Tiruchirapalli – 620 001. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.P.Ramasamy
2.R.Vijaya
3.R.Chitra
4.R.Shanmuga Priya
5.R.Saravanan
6.R.Gopinath
7.R.Jayabarathi ... Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and Decree order dated
13.12.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.114 of 2017, on the file of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal District Court, Perambalur.
For Appellant : M/s.P.Rajathi for
Mr.D.Raghu
For Respondents : Mr.T.Gobinath for R2 to R7
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 1 of 6
C.M.A.No.1929 of 2020
JUDGMENT
The State Transport Corporation is the appellant in this appeal and
is aggrieved by the impugned Judgment and decree dated 13.12.2019
passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal District Court,
Perambalur, in M.C.O.P.No.114 of 2017.
2.By the impugned judgment and decree, the Tribunal has awarded
a sum of Rs.13,14,240/- together with interest at 7.5% from the date of
the claim petition. The impugned judgment and decree is challenged in
sofaras it holds only 20% negligence on the part of the deceased.
According to the claimants, the deceased was riding his motor cycle
behind the bus and while attempting to over take the same, a dog crossed
the bus and due to which the driver of the bus applied sudden break, as
a result of which, the deceased hit the bus from the right side and came
below the rear wheel of the bus on the right side.
3.On behalf of the appellant, it was stated that the deceased was
negligent and responsible for the accident and therefore the Tribunal
ought to have fixed atleast 50% negligence on the part of the deceased
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 2 of 6
C.M.A.No.1929 of 2020
rider. It is submitted that the Tribunal has considered the evidence on
record and yet concluded by 20% negligence on the part of the deceased.
4.I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel
for the appellant and the respondent. I have perused the impugned
judgment and decree and the exhibits that were marked before the
Tribunal.
5.There is no dispute as to how the accident took placement. The
deceased who riding a two wheeler was trying to over take the bus. At
that point of time, a dog crossed the path of the bus and therefore to
avoid the dog being over run, the driver of the bus applied sudden break
which resulted in a fatal accident. The driver of the bus ought to have
been cautious while driving the bus.
6.Though as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Nishan Singh Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd, it was incumbent
on the part of the vehicle tailing behind another vehicle in front of it to
maintain the safe distance, however, when there was an attempt over take
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 3 of 6
C.M.A.No.1929 of 2020
the bus, the driver of the bus applied sudden brake. In my view, the
Tribunal has come to a fair conclusion that both the deceased and the
driver of the bus contributed to the accident. Therefore, fixation of 20%
contributory negligence on the deceased who was aged about 33 years
and supporting a family consisting of his aged parents and siblings
deserved to be confirmed.
7.This Court is of the view, the Tribunal has come to a fair
conclusion, while computing the compensation by deducting 20%
towards negligence of the deceased. Therefore, I do not find any merits
in the appeal filed by the State Transport Corporation. Accordingly, the
appeal filed by the State Transport Corporation is dismissed.
8.The appellant/State Transport Corporation is directed to deposit
the enhanced amount of compensation, together with interest at 7.5% per
annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of such deposit,
less any amount already deposited by it, within a period of six weeks
from the date of receipt of the copy of this Judgment.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 4 of 6
C.M.A.No.1929 of 2020
9.On such deposit, the 1st respondent/claimant is entitled to
withdraw his amount together with interest as directed by the Tribunal,
by filing suitable application before Tribunal.
10.Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
28.04.2021
jas
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order
To:
1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Principal District Court, Perambalur.
2.The V.R.Section,
Madras High Court, Madras.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 5 of 6
C.M.A.No.1929 of 2020
C.SARAVANAN, J.
jas
C.M.A.No.1929 of 2020
and
C.M.P.No.14234 of 2020
28.04.2021
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 6 of 6
