Madras High Court
Sri.Kavitha Travels vs Tamilnadu State Government ... on 27 January, 2021
1 CMA No.583 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.01.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
C.M.A.No.583 of 2017
Sri.Kavitha Travels,
Rep. by its Prop.L.Anandan,
H.O.2412, Rangaiah Chetty Street,
Madras-112. ...Appellant
Vs
Tamilnadu State Government Transport Corporation,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Vellore-9. ...Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 26.04.2001 made
in M.C.O.P.No.2109 of 1997 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, II Small Causes Court, Chennai.
For Appellant : No Appearance
For Respondents : Mr.CSK.Sathish
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2 CMA No.583 of 2017
JUDGMENT
The appeal is filed by the owner of the vehicle being aggrieved by the
dismissal of his claim petition filed against the Transport Corporation.
2.The case of the appellant is that on 28.11.1996, while parking his
Ambassador Car bearing Registration No.TCW 8305 near Baluchetty
Chatram, Kilambi Kottu Road, a transport Corporation bus bearing
Registration No.TN 23 0915 dashed against the parked car due to rash and
negligent driving of the driver. In the said accident, his car got totally
damaged. The claimant being dependent on the income derived from the
said car used as tourist vehicle, lost his income and also income for four
months. Also it took Rs.61,262/- to repair the vehicle besides Rs.34,300/-
for spare parts.
3. The claim petition for Rs.2,00,000/- was opposed by the Transport
Corporation on the ground that to avert a lorry which was proceeding on the
wrong side while overtaking a tanker lorry, the driver of the passenger bus
tried to avert collision and turned the vehicle to the left. At that time,
bumper of the Ambassador car stationed got damaged. The accident did not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
occur due to the negligence of the corporation bus driver but due to the rash
and negligent driving of the lorry proceeding towards the bus.
4. Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined as P.W.1 and marked
seven exhibits. The conductor of the passenger bus was examined as
R.W.1.
5. Out of 7 exhibits marked and relied by the claimant, the
photographs of the vehicle marked as Ex.P7 and F.I.R. Ex.P1 were
considered by the Tribunal and held that the accident occurred due to the
negligence of the Transport bus driver and in the said accident, the vehicle
Ambassador car of the claimant got badly damaged. Further, the Tribunal
relied upon M.V. Inspector Report to conclude that the vehicle was so
extensively damaged, therefore, not fit for moving. However, since the
claimant has failed to produce the bills of Auto Workshop and spare parts
and in the absence of evidence that due to the damage, he lost earning for
four months, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition in toto. Hence,
aggrieved by the dismissal, the present appeal is filed stating that the
Tribunal failed to consider Exs.A1 to A7 properly. Having held that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
accident has occurred due to the negligence of the transport bus driver and
the Ambassador car of the claimant has got extensively damaged, the
Tribunal ought to have given reasonable compensation, de hors of the fact
that no bill for repair and spare parts produced.
6. There is no representation for the appellant.
7. Learned counsel for the Transport Corporation would submit that
the accident took place in the year 1996. The Ambassador car is of the
model 1980. Since there is no valuation certificate produced by the
claimant, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition pointing out
the fact that the claimant has not filed any bills for repair, for spare parts or
the valuation of the vehicle before the accident and after the accident.
Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that the claimant pending
the claim petition has sold away the vehicle and no evidence to show that he
has incurred any loss in the said transaction.
8. Though there is no representation for the appellant, inspite of
adjourning the matter on several occasions, this Court on perusing the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
records finds that the Tribunal has miserably failed to award a fair
compensation on the sole ground that the claimant has failed to produce
expense bill. The photograph marked as Ex.P7 series clearly shows that the
ambassador car of the claimant has crushed both on front and rear. The
mangled remains of the car could be seen through photographs. The
accident has occurred due to the negligence of the bus driver. From the
R.C. Book marked as Ex.P3, it appears that the claimant has purchased the
ambassador car model 1980 in the year 1996 with transport permit
endorsement. Admittedly, after the accident, he has sold away the car.
9. Taking into consideration the model, age of the car and the nature
of damage caused to the vehicle as shown from the photograph Ex.P7, this
Court fix a lumpsum compensation of Rs.25,000/- payable to the claimant
with 7.5% from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The said
amount shall be deposited by the Transport Corporation within a period of
twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. On such
deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the same on appropriate
application.
Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
VRI
10. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed.
No order as to costs.
27.01.2021
vri
To
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
II Small Causes Court, Chennai.
CMA NO.583 OF 2017
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
