Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs A.Selvi on 8 January, 2021
C.M.A.No.2007 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.01.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
C.M.A.No.2007 of 2020
and
C.M.P.No.14708 of 2020
The Managing Director
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.
Railway Station Road
Kumbakonam Town
Thanjavur District. .. Appellant
Vs.
A.Selvi .. Respondent
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 11.02.2020 made
in M.C.O.P.No.64 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Sub Court, Nagapattinam.
For Appellant : Ms.P.Rajathi
for Mr.D.Raghu
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2007 of 2020
JUDGMENT
This matter is heard through Video-Conferencing.
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the
appellant/Transport Corporation against the award dated 11.02.2020 made in
M.C.O.P.No.64 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Sub Court, Nagapattinam.
2.The appellant/Transport Corporation is respondent in M.C.O.P.No.64
of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court,
Nagapattinam. The respondent filed the said claim petition claiming a sum of
Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by her in the
accident that took place on 05.04.2015.
3.According to the respondent, on the date of accident i.e., on
05.04.2015 at about 5.45 p.m., while she was boarding Velankanni bus after
returning from Samayapuram Mariamman Temple at Trichy and was sitting
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2007 of 2020
on the fifth seat on the right hand side, behind the driver seat from West to
East direction, near Kovilvenni E.B. power house, the driver of the bus
drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, at that time, the driver of the
Mahindra Tourist van, which was coming in the opposite direction, suddenly
grazed near the bus belonging to the appellant and caused the accident. In the
accident, the respondent sustained grievous injuries all over the body and
therefore, filed the above claim petition seeking compensation against the
appellant.
4.The appellant/Transport Corporation filed counter statement denying
the averments made by the respondent and stated that the accident has
occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Mahindra
Tourist van and the respondent carelessly put her hand outside the bus inspite
of warning by the conductor of the bus. Therefore, the driver of the Mahindra
van and respondent alone are responsible for the accident. Immediately, after
the accident, the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant has lodged a
complaint against the driver of the Mahindra van. The driver, owner and
insurer of the Mahindra van were not made as parties to the claim petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2007 of 2020
Therefore, the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. In
any event, the total compensation claimed by the respondent is excessive and
prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
5.Before the Tribunal, the respondent examined herself as P.W.1, one
Revathi was examined as P.W.2 and nine documents were marked as Exs.P1
to P9. The appellant/Transport Corporation examined one Chandran, the
driver of the bus as R.W.1 and one Chinnakannu, the conductor of the bus as
R.W.2 and did not file any documentary evidence.
6.The Tribunal, considering the pleadings, oral and documentary
evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by
the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant/Transport Corporation and
directed the appellant/Transport Corporation to pay a sum of Rs.1,39,000/- as
compensation to the respondent.
7.Against the said award dated 11.02.2020 made in M.C.O.P.No.64 of
2016, the appellant/Transport Corporation has come out with the present
appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2007 of 2020
8.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Transport
Corporation contended that at the time of accident, the respondent had
carelessly put her hand outside the bus inspite of warning by the conductor of
the bus. The accident did not occur as alleged by the respondent. The driver
of the bus is not responsible for the accident. Due to the negligence of the
respondent only, the accident has occurred. The Tribunal erroneously fixed
negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and liability on the appellant.
The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and prayed for
setting aside the award of the Tribunal.
9.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Transport
Corporation and perused all the materials available on record.
10.It is the contention of the respondent that while she was travelling in
the bus belonging to the appellant/Transport Corporation, the driver of the
bus drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner, dashed on the Mahindra
van and caused the accident. In the accident, the respondent sustained
multiple injuries and she has taken treatment as in-patient in the hospital. To
substantiate the same, the respondent examined herself as P.W.1 and marked
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2007 of 2020
F.I.R., which was registered against the driver of the bus as Ex.P1. On the
other hand, it is the case of the appellant that the respondent put her hand
outside the bus inspite of warning by the conductor and she was responsible
for the accident. The accident occurred only due to her negligence. The
driver of the bus is not responsible for the accident. The appellant examined
the driver and conductor of the bus as R.W.1 and R.W.2 respectively. From
the award of the Tribunal, it is seen that R.W.2/conductor of the bus has not
seen the accident. He deposed that he came to know about the accident only
after hearing the sound. R.W.1 deposed that the accident has occurred due to
carelessness of the respondent. The appellant or the driver of the bus has not
lodged any complaint against the respondent or against the driver of the
Mahindra van or given any objection to the F.I.R., which was registered
against the driver of the bus. The Tribunal considering the evidence of R.W.1
and R.W.2, did not accept their evidence by giving valid reason and
considering the evidence of respondent as P.W.1 and F.I.R., has held
that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the
driver of the bus belonging to the appellant/Transport Corporation. There
is no error in the said finding of the Tribunal warranting
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2007 of 2020
interference by this Court.
11.As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal
considering the nature of injuries, disability and period of treatment taken by
the respondent, has awarded compensation under different heads, which is
not excessive warranting interference by this Court.
12.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the
sum of Rs.1,39,000/- awarded by the Tribunal as compensation to the
respondent, along with interest and costs is confirmed. The
appellant/Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the entire amount
awarded by the Tribunal along with interest and costs, less the amount
already deposited, if any, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the respondent is
permitted to withdraw the entire amount awarded by the Tribunal along with
interest and costs, less the amount if any, already withdrawn. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
08.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2007 of 2020
Index : Yes / No
kj
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2007 of 2020
V.M.VELUMANI,J.
kj
To
1.The Subordinate Judge
(Motor Accident Claims Tribunal),
Nagapattinam.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court,
Chennai.
C.M.A.No.2007 of 2020 and
C.M.P.No.14708 of 2020
08.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
