Madras High Court
Kapildev vs The Managing Director on 8 January, 2021
C.M.A. No.1713 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.01.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
C.M.A.No.1713 of 2019
Kapildev .. Appellant
Vs.
The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
Villupuram Zone,
Villpuram. .. Respondent
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 04.01.2019, made
in M.C.O.P. No.198 of 2011, on the file of the Sub Court, (Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal) Gingee.
For Appellant : Mr.A. Sathish Kumar
for M/s.C.Thangaraju
For Respondent : Mr. K.J. Sivakumar
___
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A. No.1713 of 2019
JUDGMENT
The matter is heard through "Video Conferencing".
This appeal has been filed against the dismissal of claim petition by the
award dated 04.01.2019, made in M.C.O.P. No.198 of 2011, on the file of the
Sub Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal) Gingee.
2.The appellant filed M.C.O.P. No.198 of 2011, on the file of the Sub
Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal) Gingee, claiming a sum of
Rs.6,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the
accident that took place on 09.10.2011.
3.According to the appellant, on the date of accident, when he was
traveling as a pillion rider in a Motorcycle from Raja fort towards Gingee, the
driver of the Bus bearing Registration No.TN-25-N-0054 belonging to the
respondent-Transport Corporation which was coming from Gingee to
Tiruvannamalai, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed
___
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A. No.1713 of 2019
against the appellant and caused the accident. In the accident the appellant
suffered multiple and grievous injuries. The accident occurred only due to
rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Bus. For the injuries suffered
by him, he has filed the claim petition, claiming compensation against the
respondent as owner of the offending Bus.
4.The respondent – Transport Corporation filed counter statement and
denied all the averments made by the appellant. According to the respondent,
while the Bus was proceeding from Chennai to Tiruvannamalai, near Gingee
Raja Fort, rider of the Motorcycle in which the appellant traveled as a pillion
rider, rode the vehicle in a drunken mode without wearing helmet and dashed
against the Bus and caused the accident. The Police after investigation,
finding that accident occurred due to negligence of both the vehicles,
permitted to ply the Bus in its route. The appellant has to prove that rider of
the Motorcycle possessed valid driving license at the time of accident. In any
event, the appellant has to prove his age, income and avocation, injuries
sustained in the accident, treatment taken for the same, to claim
___
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A. No.1713 of 2019
compensation. The total compensation claimed by the appellant is excessive
and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
5.Before the Tribunal, the appellant examined himself as P.W.1,
Dr.Balamurugan was examined as P.W.2 and 8 documents were marked as
Exs.P1 to P8. The respondent examined the driver of the Bus as R.W.1 and
marked 1 document as Ex.R1.
6.The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary
evidence, dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the accident did not
occur due to negligence of the driver of the Bus belonging to the respondent-
Transport Corporation.
7.Challenging the dismissal of claim petition by the award dated
04.01.2019, made in M.C.O.P. No.198 of 2011, the appellant has come out
with the present appeal.
___
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A. No.1713 of 2019
8.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the
Tribunal erred in relying on the evidence of R.W.1/the driver of the Bus and
holding that appellant failed to prove that accident occurred only due to rash
and negligent driving by driver of the Bus. The Tribunal simply extracted the
examination of appellant in his cross examination and concluded that driver
of the Bus was not at fault. The driver of the Bus has stated that Two Wheeler
dashed in the side of the Bus in between two doors and he stopped the vehicle
after hearing the sound. Had the driver driven the vehicle diligently upon
seeing the appellant and another coming in the Two Wheeler from side road,
he would have stopped the vehicle well in advance and avoided the accident.
The appellant was only a pillion rider. Two vehicles were involved in the
accident. The appellant can choose to claim compensation against any one of
the tort-feasor and prayed for allowing the appeal.
9.Per contra, Mr.K.J. Sivakumar, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-Transport Corporation contended that the appellant in his cross
___
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A. No.1713 of 2019
examination, admitted that Two Wheeler coming from side road to the highways
dashed on the side of the Bus in between two doors of the Bus. From this
admission and place of impact, it is clear that accident has occurred only due to
rash and negligent riding by rider of the Two Wheeler. The Tribunal has
considered all the materials on record in proper perspective and dismissed the
claim petition. There is no error in the said award of the Tribunal and prayed for
dismissal of the appeal.
10.Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the
respondent-Transport Corporation and perused the materials available on record.
11.It is the case of the appellant that while he was traveling as a pillion
rider in the Motorcycle, driver of the Bus drove the same in a rash and negligent
manner and dashed against the Motorcycle and caused the accident. In support
of his case, he examined himself as P.W.1 and marked FIR as Ex.P1. On the
other hand, it is the case of the respondent that rider of the Motorcycle came
from side road to the highways in a rash and negligent manner without noticing
the on coming traffic in highways, dashed on the side of the Bus in between two
___
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A. No.1713 of 2019
doors and caused the accident. To substantiate their case, the driver of the Bus
was examined as R.W.1. The appellant as P.W.1, has admitted in the cross
examination that accident has occurred when the Motorcycle in which he was
traveling as pillion rider, coming from side road dashed on the middle of the Bus
in between two doors of the Bus. From this admission, as well as from the
evidence of R.W.1/ driver of the Bus that when the Motorcycle entering into the
highways, without seeing traffic in the highways, dashed on the side of the Bus
coming in the highways in between two doors. The contention of the learned
counsel appearing for the appellant that driver of the Bus ought to have seen the
side road and stopped the bus for the vehicle coming from the side road is
without merits. Only the person coming from the side lane and entering into the
main road must be careful and see the traffic in the main road or highways,
before entering. The Tribunal considering all the materials in proper perspective,
dismissed the claim petition. There is no error in the finding of the Tribunal
warranting interference by this Court.
___
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A. No.1713 of 2019
12.In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.
08.01.2021
Index : Yes / No
gsa
To
1.The Subordinate Judge,
(Motor Accident Claims Tribunal),
Gingee.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R Section,
High Court, Madras.
___
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A. No.1713 of 2019
V.M.VELUMANI, J.,
gsa
C.M.A.No.1713 of 2019
08.01.2021
___
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
