Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs A. Hameed Farook on 14 June, 2021
CMA No.1250 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
CMA No.1250 of 2016
and
CMP No.9456 of 2016
The Managing Director,
Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd.,
Pallavan Salai,
Chennai - 600 002. ... Appellant
Versus
1. A. Hameed Farook
2. Chitthikathega
3. Sadam Hussain (Minor) ... Respondents
Minor petitioner rep. by his next friend and
father the 1st petitioner
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Acts, 1988 to set aside the award made in the M.C.O.P.
No.2492 of 2010 dated 26.03.2012 on the file of Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (II Court of Small Causes, Chennai).
For Appellant : Mr.K. Moorthy
For Respondents : Mr.M.Selvam for R1 to R3
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed by the Transport Corporation
challenging the award dated 26.03.2012 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (II Court of Small Causes, Chennai) in MCOP No.2492
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.1250 of 2016
of 2010.
2. The appellant / Transport Corporation has challenged the award
only on the ground that the Tribunal erred in not fixing the contributory
negligence on the part of the deceased. According to them, the deceased
got down from the moving bus and therefore, there is contributory
negligence on his part also. With regard to the quantum of compensation
fixed by the Tribunal, even though grounds have been raised questioning
the same also, the learned counsel for the appellant has not raised any
serious objection with regard to the fixation of the compensation.
3. Heard Mr.K.Moorthy, learned counsel for the appellant /
Transport Corporation and Mr.M.Selvam, learned counsel for the
respondents.
4. This Court has perused the materials and evidence available on
record before the Tribunal.
5. Before the Tribunal, the respondents / claimants have filed 11
documents, which were marked as Exs. P1 to P11 and 3 witnesses were
examined on their side viz., PW1, the father of the deceased, PW2, the
employer of the deceased, and PW3, an eye witness to the accident. On
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.1250 of 2016
the side of the appellant / Transport Corporation, they have examined
Chinnasamy as RW1, who was the Driver of the bus at the time of the
accident. However, they have not filed any documents before the
Tribunal.
6. The appellant / Transport Corporation is relying upon the
deposition of PW3, an eye witness to the accident for the purpose of
establishing their case that there is contributory negligence on the part of
the deceased also. In the claim petition, the respondents / claimants have
pleaded that while getting down from the bus near the bus stop, the
Driver of the bus drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner, which
resulted in the death of the deceased. Even though PW3, who claims to
be an eye witness to the accident as according to him, he was also
travelling along with the deceased may have deposed that while the bus
stopped in a speed breaker, some of the passengers including the
deceased had got down from the bus and as a result of the same, the
deceased fell down and sustained injuries, the same cannot be relied
upon by the appellant / Transport Corporation as they have failed to
examine the Conductor of the bus, who was inside the bus when the
deceased fell down from the bus. No sketch has also been marked before
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.1250 of 2016
the Tribunal to prove as to how the accident has happened. The
appellant / Transport Corporation has not filed any documentary
evidence before the Tribunal nor they have examined the Conductor or
any investigating Officer (Police) to prove that the deceased was also at
fault. The Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence available on
record and come to the right conclusion that there is no contributory
negligence on the part of the deceased.
7. For the aforementioned reasons, this Court is of the considered
view that there is no merit in this appeal and accordingly, the Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
8. The Appellant / Transport Corporation is directed to deposit
the entire award amount awarded by the Tribunal together with interest at
7.5% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of realization, less
the amount, if any, already deposited to the credit of M.C.O.P. No.2492
of 2010 on the file of the II Court of Small Causes (Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal), Chennai, within a period of six weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such deposit being made, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.1250 of 2016
Tribunal is directed to transfer the award amount directly to the bank
account of the 2nd respondent / claimant through RTGS, within a period
of two weeks thereafter.
14.06.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
vsi2
To
1. The Judge,
II Court of small Causes, Chennai
2. The Section Officer,
V.R. Section
High Court of Madras, Chennai - 104.
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA No.1250 of 2016
vsi2
CMA No.1250 of 2016
14.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
