Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs R.Indhira on 6 August, 2021
C.M.A.No.2127 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.08.2021
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN
and
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
C.M.A.No.2127 of 2021
and
C.M.P.No.11751 of 2021
The Managing Director,
State Express Transport Corporation Ltd.,
No.2, Pallavan Salai,
Chennai-2. ... Appellant
Vs
1.R.Indhira
2.Minor R.Tamilselvi
3.Minor R.Mathivadhini
Represented by Mother R.Indhira ..Respondents
PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, prayed to set aside the Judgment and Decree
dated 30.04.2019 and made in M.C.O.P.No.91 of 2016 (on the file of the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Ist Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Cuddalore).
For Appellant : Mr.K.Kathiresan
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/8
C.M.A.No.2127 of 2021
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.)
The appellant/Transport Corporation has filed this appeal
challenging the award passed in MCOP No.91 of 2016 on the file of the
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ist Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Cuddalore, awarding compensation to the legal heirs of
the deceased Ramalingam and prayed to set aside the award, as the
Tribunal had failed to consider the fact that due to the negligence act of
the deceased who had driven the two wheeler negligently, the accident
had occurred.
2.The fact reveals that on 30.09.2015 at about 22.00 hrs, the
deceased Ramalingam was riding his two wheeler on the left side of the
Trichy-Villupuram National Highways near Surveyor Nagar
(Villupuram). The bus belonging to the appellant / Transport Corporation
bearing Reg.No.TN.01.AN.0326, driven by its driver, came from behind,
driven by its driver in a high speed in a negligent manner, without
following the traffic rules and hit the two wheeler and thereby, the said
Ramalingam died.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2127 of 2021
3. At the time of the accident, the deceased was a Head
Constable and drawing a salary of Rs.32,126/- per month and had 10
years of service. The legal heirs of the said Ramalingam filed a claim
petition in MCOP No.91 of 2016 against the appellant / Transport
Corporation. On hearing both sides, the Tribunal concluded that the
accident had happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver
of the bus and awarded the compensation. Aggrieved by the said order,
the Transport Corporation has preferred this appeal.
4.Heard Mr.K.Kathiresan, learned Counsel appearing for the
appellant.
5.The question of law that arises for consideration in this
appeal is as to “whether the Tribunal erroneously concluded that the
negligence was on the part of the driver of the State Express Transport
Corporation bus and passed the award”?
6.At the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that the rider of the two wheeler / deceased had
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2127 of 2021
driven the vehicle, without following the traffic rules in the middle of the
road and without observing the on going bus, thereby, out of his own
negligence, he invited the accident. But the Tribunal, without considering
this aspect, erroneously fastened the liability upon the appellant /
Transport Corporation.
7. It is the stand of the claimants before the Tribunal that the
accident happened due to the negligent act of the driver of the bus and
the same was prima facie proved by the claimants before the Tribunal, by
examining witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.3 and documents Exs.P1 to P9.
8. On a perusal of the records, it reveal, that to prove the
negligent act of the driver of the bus, the respondents / petitioners
produced Ex.P1 – FIR, through which, the appellant was able to establish
that based on the complaint the FIR was lodged against the driver of the
bus and to prove the mode of accident, eye-witness P.W.2 was examined.
But there is no contra evidence on the side of the appellant / Transport
Corporation to disprove the evidence of P.W.2. and no independent
evidence was adduced on the side of the appellant, in order to establish
that the accident happened due to the negligent act of the rider of the two
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2127 of 2021
wheeler. If the accident had occurred due to the negligent act of the two
wheeler, the bus driver ought to have given the complaint against the
said deceased. But no such action was taken on the Transport
Corporation nor any reason was explained on that aspect.
9. In fact, 'the negligence needs for proper proof to establish
and mere allegation is not sufficient without adducing any evidence or
proof before the Tribunal. At the appellate stage, primarily, the
appellant's counsel raised such an objection, which is not maintainable in
law. The allegation of negligence on the part of the driver of the two
wheeler is to be specifically pleaded and to be proved before the
Tribunal, but the Transport Corporation failed to do so.
10. On the other hand, the claimants proved the negligence act
of the driver of the bus with sufficient evidence. Based upon the same,
the Tribunal has fixed the liability upon the Transport Corporation which
requires no interference by this Court. Hence the award passed by the
Tribunal is confirmed.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2127 of 2021
11. The Tribunal awarded 7.5 % interest from the date of
petition i.e., 30.11.2015 till the date of deposit and the same is hereby
confirmed. Therefore, the award amount of Rs.44,58,508/- with 7.5%
interest is a very reasonable and just compensation and the same does not
require any interference by this Court. Hence, the appeal fails and the
same is liable to be dismissed.
12. The appellant / Transport Corporation is directed to deposit
the entire award amount as per the award of the Tribunal, along with
interest and costs, after deducting the amount, if any, already deposited,
within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
Judgment. On such deposit being made, the Tribunal is directed to
transfer the respective shares of the Respondents through RTGS within a
period of one week, except the share of the 2nd and 3rd
Respondent/minors, which shall be deposited in any one of the
Nationalized Banks in an interest bearing Fixed Deposit till they attain
majority and the interest accrued in the Fixed Deposit Scheme shall be
withdrawn by the 1st respondent (Mother). The proportion of allocation
of shares adopted by the Tribunal, shall stand confirmed.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2127 of 2021
13. Accordingly the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed
and the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (1st
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore) in MCOP.No.91 of
2016 is confirmed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous
Petition is closed.
14.Call the matter after four weeks to file an affidavit by the
appellant / Transport Corporation for having complied with the order
passed by this Court, failing which Chairman-cum-Managing Director
and Chief Financial Officer-cum-Chief Accounts Officer of the appellant
/ Transport Corporation shall appear before this Court.
(N.K.K.,J.) (T.V.T.S.,J.)
06.08.2021
rri
Index: Yes/ No
Speaking order: Yes
To
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
1st Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Cuddalore.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section, High Court of Madras.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2127 of 2021
N.KIRUBAKARAN, J.
and
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
rri
C.M.A.No.2127 of 2021
and
C.M.P.No.11751 of 2021
06.08.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
