Madras High Court
Balan vs V.K.Sekar on 22 November, 2021
C.M.A.No.893 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.11.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
C.M.A.No.893 of 2014
Balan .. Appellant
Vs.
1.V.K.Sekar
2.The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
Limited, Kumbakonam Division,
Trichy. .. Respondents
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated
12.09.2005 made in M.C.O.P.No.681 of 2002 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Namakkal.
For Appellant : Mr.A.Sathishkumar for
Mr.C.Thangaraju
For Respondents : No appearance
JUDGMENT
(The matter is heard through “Video Conferencing/Hybrid mode”.)
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the award dated
12.09.2005 made in M.C.O.P.No.681 of 2002 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Namakkal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.893 of 2014
2.The appellant is the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.681 of 2002 on the file
of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court,
Namakkal. He filed the above said claim petition against the respondents,
claiming a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by
him in the accident that took place on 01.09.2000.
3.According to the appellant, on 01.09.2000 at 4.00 p.m., while he was
riding TVS 50 with one Balamurugan as pillion rider at Alanganatham Pirivu
road, Namakkal Taluk, 1st respondent, the driver of the bus bearing
Registration No.TN 45 N 1622 belonging to the 2nd respondent, who was
coming in the opposite direction, drove the same in a rash and negligent
manner, hit against TVS 50, driven by the appellant and caused the accident.
In the accident, the appellant and pillion rider sustained injuries. After taking
first aid in the Government Hospital, Namakkal, the appellant was admitted in
Government Hospital, Salem and has taken treatment as in-patient for 3 days
and thereafter, admitted in Aravinth Nursing Home, Namakkal for further
treatment and spent a sum of Rs.1 lakh towards medical expenses. The
appellant was aged 29 years at the time of accident, he was an agricultural
coolie and was earning a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month and claimed a sum of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.893 of 2014
Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him.
4.The driver of the bus, the first respondent remained ex-parte before
the Tribunal.
5.The 2nd respondent has filed counter statement and denied all the
averments in the claim petition. According to the 2nd respondent, while 1st
respondent after alighting the passengers in the bus stop, slowly taking the
bus and was driving in the bent, the appellant who came in the opposite
direction in TVS 50 in a zig-zag manner, even after the 1 st respondent, the
driver of the bus stopped the bus on the left hand side of the road, the
appellant dashed on the bus and invited the accident. At the time of accident,
the appellant was in inebriated condition. The accident did not occur due to
rash and negligent driving by the 1st respondent, the driver of the bus and
prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
6.Before the Tribunal, the appellant examined himself as P.W.1 and
examined Dr.K.Mani as P.W.2 and marked 6 documents as Exs.P1 to P6. On
the side of the respondents, the driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1 and
no documentary evidence was marked.
7.The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.893 of 2014
evidence, dismissed the claim petition holding that the accident has occurred
only due to the negligence of the appellant.
8.Challenging the said order of dismissal dated 12.09.2005 made in
M.C.O.P.No.681 of 2002, the appellant has come out with the present appeal.
9.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the
Tribunal failed to see that the 1st respondent, the driver of the bus drove the
bus in a rash and negligent manner, dashed on the back side of the TVS 50
and caused the accident. Whether the appellant was riding the TVS 50 or he
is a pillion rider, when the accident caused by first respondent and appellant
suffered injury, the respondents are liable to pay compensation to him. The 2 nd
respondent failed to prove that the appellant was in drunken mood at the time
of accident. The contents of the First Information Report given by the driver
or owner of the offending vehicle will not hold good and finding of the
Tribunal fixing negligence on the appellant is only on presumption and
assumption and prayed for setting aside the award of the Tribunal and
claiming compensation.
10.Though notice has been served on the 1st respondent and his name is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.893 of 2014
printed in the cause list, there is no representation for him either in person or
through counsel.
11.Though the 2nd respondent entered appearance through counsel,
there is no representation for him, when the matter is taken up for hearing.
12.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused
the entire materials on record.
13.From the materials on record, it is seen that in the claim petition, the
appellant has stated that while he was riding TVS 50 along with one
Balamurugan as pillion rider, the 1st respondent, the driver of the bus
belonging to the 2nd respondent, who was coming in the opposite direction,
drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner, hit against TVS 50 and caused
the accident. In the accident, the appellant sustained injuries. This contention
was denied by the 2nd respondent by filing counter statement. It is the case of
the 2nd respondent that the accident has occurred only due to rash and
negligent riding by the appellant. The appellant as P.W.1 gave up his
statement in the claim petition that he was riding TVS 50 at the time of
accident and bus was coming in the opposite direction. The appellant contrary
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.893 of 2014
to the averments in the claim petition deposed that Balamurugan was riding
TVS 50 and the appellant was a pillion rider. In the grounds of appeal and
during the argument before this Court, the appellant has come out with a new
case that the 1st respondent dashed TVS 50 from behind. This contradiction
clearly shows that the appellant has not approached this Court with clean
hands and has not proved that the accident occurred only due to rash and
negligent driving by the 1st respondent, the driver of the bus. The Tribunal
considering all the materials, dismissed the claim petition by giving cogent
and valid reason. There is no error or irregularity in the said order of the
learned Judge warranting interference by this Court.
14.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
22.11.2021
vkr
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
To
1.The Chief Judicial Magistrate,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.893 of 2014
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Namakkal.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court,
Madras.
V.M.VELUMANI, J.
vkr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.893 of 2014
C.M.A.No.893 of 2014
22.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
