Madras High Court
Murugan vs The Managing Director on 9 July, 2021
C.M.A.No.2295 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.07.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
C.M.A.No.2295 of 2015
Murugan ... Appellant
Vs
The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
(Villupuram Division-1),
No.3/137, Salamedu,
Vazhutha Reddy,
Villupuram District. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act against the decree and judgment dated 16.09.2014 and made in
MACTOP.No.570 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, V Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.F.Terry Chella Raja
For Respondent : Mr.K.J.Sivakumar
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2295 of 2015
JUDGMENT
(This case is heard through Video Conferencing)
This civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the claimant
challenging the exoneration of the liability of the respondent under the
impugned judgment and decree dated 16.09.2014 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Vth Court of Small Causes, Chennai) in
MCOP.No.570 of 2010.
2. Heard Mr.F.Terry Chella Raja learned counsel for the
Appellant/claimant and Mr.K.J.Sivakumar learned counsel appearing for
the respondent Transport Corporation.
3. The Appellant/claimant sustained injuries on 18.10.2008 as a
result of an accident between two vehicles namely the motor cycle bearing
registration No.TN02-L-9734 in which the Appellant/claimant was a rider
and a bus bearing registration No.TN32-N-1402 owned by the respondent
Transport Corporation. The Appellant/claimant preferred a claim petition
before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal seeking compensation for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2295 of 2015
injuries sustained by him against the respondent as according to him, it is
only the driver of the bus which is owned by the respondent Transport
Corporation was responsible for the cause of the accident which resulted in
him sustaining injuries.
4. However, it was the contention of the respondent corporation
before the Tribunal that their driver was not at fault as FIR was registered
only against the Appellant/claimant which was marked as Ex.P8 before the
Tribunal.
5. Before the Tribunal, the Appellant/claimant has filed 10
documents which were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 and three witnesses
were examined on his side namely the Appellant/claimant himself as PW1,
an eye-witness to the accident as PW2 and the Doctor who examined him as
PW3. On the side of the respondent Corporation, their driver who was
driving the bus at the time of accident was examined as RW1 and no
document was filed on their side.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2295 of 2015
6. The Tribunal under the Judgment and Decree dated 16.09.2014
passed in MCOP.No.570 of 2010 exonerated the liability of the respondent
Corporation based on the FIR which was marked as Ex.P8 and which has
been registered only against the Appellant/claimant and held that the driver
of the bus is not responsible for the cause of the accident. The Tribunal has
awarded a compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the Appellant/claimant on the
ground of no fault liability under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
7. The contention of the Appellant/claimant before this Court, as seen
from the grounds raised in this appeal is that the Tribunal has given a go-by
to the deposition of the Appellant/claimant (PW1) as well as to the
deposition of the eye-witness to the accident (PW2) which clearly reveal
that the driver of the bus was alone responsible for the cause of the
accident. Further it is the contention of the Appellant/claimant that the FIR
was registered only at the behest of the driver of the bus and therefore, the
said FIR cannot be looked into for the purpose of giving a finding as to who
is responsible for the cause of the accident as the driver of the bus is an
interested party and is not an independent witness.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2295 of 2015
8. Learned counsel for the Appellant drew the attention of this Court
to the impugned award and the findings contained therein.
9. Admittedly, FIR Ex.P8 was registered against the
Appellant/claimant only at the behest of the driver of the bus owned by the
respondent Corporation. The Appellant/claimant (PW1) and the eye-
witness (PW2) in their depositions, they had categorically deposed that only
due to the fault of the driver of the bus, the accident had happened which
resulted in the injuries sustained by the Appellant/claimant.
10. As seen from the impugned award, the Tribunal has failed to
consider the cross-examination of PW1 and PW2, but instead has accepted
the FIR (Ex.P8) in toto and held the driver of the bus not responsible for the
cause of the accident. As observed earlier, FIR has been registered only at
the behest of the driver of the bus who is not an independent person. There
is no discussion whatsoever in the impugned judgment about the
depositions of PW1 and PW2 wherein they have deposed that only due to
the fault of the driver of the bus, the accident had happened. A consistent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2295 of 2015
stand has also been taken by the Appellant/claimant as seen from his claim
petition as well as from his deposition that it is only the driver of the bus
who is responsible for the cause of the accident. This being the case, the
Tribunal ought to have considered the depositions of PW1 and PW2, but has
erroneously failed to consider the same in the impugned award.
11. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view
that the matter will have to be remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh
consideration on merits and in accordance with law on the aspect of
negligence within a time frame to be fixed by this Court in order to give an
effective adjudication for the claim made by the Appellant/claimant.
12. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of and
the impugned Judgment and decree dated 16.09.2014 passed by the Vth
Court of Small Causes, Chennai in MCOP.No.570 of 2010 is hereby
setaside and the matter is remanded back to the very same Tribunal for fresh
consideration. Both the parties are permitted to adduce additional evidence,
if so required, with regard to the respective contentions. The Tribunal is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2295 of 2015
directed to dispose of the matter on merits and in accordance with law
within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
Judgment. No costs.
09.07.2021
nl
Index: Yes/ No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order
To
1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, V Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court of Madras.
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2295 of 2015
nl
C.M.A.No.2295 of 2015
09.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
