Jayaprakash vs Tamil Nadu State Transport ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 4564 Mad

                                                          1                   CMA No.1554 of 2017




                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                  DATED : 22.02.2021

                                                       CORAM:

                                   THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

                                                 C.M.A.No.1554 of 2017


                     Jayaprakash                                                     ...Appellant



                                                         Vs
                     Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
                     Kumbokanam,
                     Rep. by its Managing Director.                            ...Respondent


                     PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor

                     Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 28.05.2012 made

                     in M.C.O.P.No.15 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims

                     Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam.


                                     For Appellant        : No Appearance
                                     For Respondents      : Mr.V.S.Vijay Veliappan




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                              2                      CMA No.1554 of 2017


                                                     JUDGMENT

The appeal is filed by the claimant aggrieved by the dismissal of the

claim petition by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Nagapattinam.

2.The brief facts of the case is that on 14.03.2011 at about 01.30p.m.,

when the claimant about to board the passenger bus bearing Registration

No.TN49 1628 to Killukudi from Thevoor, the bus driver negligently

moved the bus, the claimant fell down from the bus and got injured.

Alleging that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the bus driver

and in the accident, his right leg got amputated, a compensation for

Rs.5,00,000/- sought against the Transport Corporation.

3.The Transport Corporation filed counter stating that the claimant

got injured, when he tried to board the moving bus. The accident occurred

due to the negligence of the claimant. Therefore, the Transport Corporation

is not responsible to pay any compensation.

4.Before the Tribunal, the claimant and the doctor, who gave the

disability certificate were examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2. 11 exhibits were

marked.

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

5.The Tribunal after considering the evidence particularly the

evidence of the claimant, concluded that the accident did not occur due to

the rashness or negligence of the bus driver. In the F.I.R., the cousin of the

claimant had informed the police that the Nagapattinam to

Thiruthuraipoondi bus bearing Registration No.TN 49 1628 halted at

Bharathi Nagar bus stop and moved after boarding of all the passengers.

The informant ran and boarded the moving bus from the rear steps. The

claimant who tried to board the moving bus from the front steps fell down

and sustained injuries when the left side rear tyre of the bus ran over the

right leg of the claimant. P.W.1 had admitted in his cross examination that

he fell down from the moving bus when he tried to board the moving bus

from the front entrance and also admitted that he is the cause for the

accident. Since the evidence of the claimant clearly indicates that there is

no fault on the part of the bus driver, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the

claim petition.

6.In the appeal, the said award is challenged on the ground that the

driver ought to have watched the rear view mirror and should have stopped

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

DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.

VRI

the bus as soon as the claimant fell down. If he had halted the bus, the

accident would have been averted. The said contention though sounds very

impressive, it is highly impossible for any driver to expect passengers trying

to board the moving bus. The reason given by the Tribunal for dismissing

the claim petition is supported by evidence and own admission of the

claimant. Hence, there is no ground to interfere the finding of the Tribunal.

Hence, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs.

22.02.2021

vri To

1.Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam.

2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, Madras High Court.

CMA NO.1554 OF 2017

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