The Managing Director vs M.Meiyan @ China Meiyan
2021 Latest Caselaw 24038 Mad

                                                                           C.M.A.(MD)No.1088 of 2021


                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                               DATED : 07.12.2021

                                                       CORAM :

                                  THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI

                                        C.M.A.(MD)No.1088 of 2021
                                                     and
                                        C.M.P(MD)No.10311 of 2021
                  The Managing Director,
                  The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
                  Bye Pass Road,
                  Madurai.                                    ...Appellant/Respondent

                                                         Vs.

                  M.Meiyan @ China Meiyan                           ...Respondent/Claimant


                  PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
                  Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the judgment and decree, dated 08.11.2019
                  passed in M.C.O.P.No.699 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
                  Tribunal / Special Sub Judge, Madurai.


                                       For Appellant     :Mr.K.Sudalaiyandi
                                       For Respondent    :Mr.M.Mahendran

                                                       JUDGMENT

This Appellant/State Transport Corporation has filed this Civil

Miscellaneous Petition, to set aside the judgment and decree, dated

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.(MD)No.1088 of 2021

08.11.2019 passed in M.C.O.P.No.699 of 2016 on the file of the Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal / Special Sub Judge, Madurai.

2.It is a case of accident, which took place on 09.03.2016, the claimant

was sitting in front of the Tea shop at Palkalai Nagar – Thirunagar Road, at

that time a bus bearing Registration No.TN-58-N-1359 was driven by its

driver came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant.

Due to the said accident, the claimant sustained multiple injuries.

3.The claimant has filed a petition in M.C.O.P.No.699 of 2016 on the

file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Special Sub Judge, Madurai,

seeking compensation.

4.Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants, three witnesses

were examined as P.Ws.1 to 3 and marked seven documents as Exs.P.1 to P.7.

On the side of the respondent, two witnesses were examined as R.W.1 and

R.W.2 and two documents were marked as Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 and one Court

document was marked as Ex.C1.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.(MD)No.1088 of 2021

5.The Tribunal, after considering the pleadings, oral and documentary

evidences and the arguments of the counsel for the claimant and the

respondents and also on appreciating the evidences on record, held that the

accident was occurred due to the negligent act of the driver of the respondent

bus and directed the appellant to pay compensation. Aggrieved over the

judgment passed by the Tribunal, the appellant has filed the present appeal

under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

6.Heard both sides and perused the material available on record.

7.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Transport

Corporation contended that on the day of accident, the appellant's bus did not

involve any accident as alleged by the respondent. In fact, the said bus has

completed its trip without any accident on the day. Hence, the appellant bus

driver was not responsible for the accident. The compensation awarded by

the Tribunal is excessive.

8.On perusal of records, it shows that due to the said accident, the

claimant was immediately admitted in the hospital and sustained 40%

permanent disability and the permanent disability certificate was marked as

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.(MD)No.1088 of 2021

Ex.C1. It is not acceptable that the bus completed its trip on that day and did

not involved in the accident. But the FIR was registered immediately as

against the driver of the bus and marked as Ex.P1. The claimant was also

examined as PW1 and eye witness was examined as PW3. So the contention

of the appellant/Transport Corporation is not acceptable. There is no error in

the said finding. Asfar as quantum of compensation is concerned, the amount

awarded by the Tribunal is not excessive.

9.Considering all the materials on record in entirety, this court is of the

view that there is no error to interfere with the award of the Tribunal.

10.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed by

confirming the order and decree, dated 08.11.2019 passed in M.C.O.P.No.699

of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / Special Sub

Judge, Madurai. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition

is closed.

07.12.2021

Index :Yes/No Internet:Yes/No vsd

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.(MD)No.1088 of 2021

Note:In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the Advocate/litigant concerned.

To

1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / Special Sub Court, Thanjavur.

2.The Record Keeper, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.(MD)No.1088 of 2021

S.ANANTHI, J.

vsd

C.M.A.(MD)No.1088 of 2021 and C.M.P(MD)No.10311 of 2021

07.12.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis