Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs Vijayalakshmi on 5 October, 2021
C.M.A.No.1406 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.7273 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
.
DATE : 05.10.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
C.M.A.No.1406 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.7273 of 2021
The Managing Director
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Limited
Regional Office, Bharathipuram
Dharmapuri – 5. ... Appellant
-vs-
1.Vijayalakshmi
2.Minor Prahadiswaran
3.Minor Nishanth
4.Kaliammal
5.Perumal ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the judgment dated 28.10.2020
made in M.C.O.P.No.1 of 2019 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal / Special District Court, Krishnagiri.
For appellant : Mr.S.Silambanan, AAG
for Mr.D.Raghu
For respondent : Mr.SP.Yuaraj
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1406 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.7273 of 2021
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by V.SIVAGNANAM, J]
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed, to set aside the
judgment dated 28.10.2020 made in M.C.O.P.No.1 of 2019 on the file of the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Special District Court, Krishnagiri.
2.It is the case of the respondents 1 to 5/claimants, that on 09.09.2018
at about 7.15 p.m., the deceased-Raman was riding his Hero Honda Motor
Cycle bearing Registration No.TN-29-M-4374, on the left side of the road
from Mel Kuppam to Uthangarai. At that time, the bus belonging to the
appellant/Transport Corporation bearing Registration No.TN-29-N-1968
was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, on the opposite side
direction from Hosur side towards Thiruvannamalai, dashed against the
Motor Cycle of the deceased. In that accident, the deceased died on the spot.
Alleging that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the driver
of the appellant Transport Corporation, the legal heirs of the deceased laid a
claim petition, claiming a compensation of Rs.1,50,00,000/-.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1406 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.7273 of 2021
3.Resisting the claim petition, the appellant/Transport Corporation
filed counter, disputing the manner of accident, age, income and occupation
of the deceased and its liability to pay the compensation.
4.To substantiate the claim, on the side of the claimants P.Ws.1 to 3
were examined and Exs.P.1 to 19 were marked. On the side of the Transport
Corporation, R.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.R.1 to 4 were examined.
5.The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence
held that the driver of the bus contributed 90% negligence and the deceased
contributed 10% negligence towards the accident and awarded a
compensation of Rs.90,97,976/- with proportionate interest and cost.
6.The learned Additional Advocate General, Mr.S.Silambanan,
appearing for the appellant/Transport Corporation would argue that the
deceased without minding the vehicle, which was coming from opposite
direction, came to the middle of the right side road. While overtaking the on
going vehicle, he applied sudden brake. Due to which he lost his control
and fell down. The Rough Sketch dated 09.09.2018 would clearly show that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1406 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.7273 of 2021
the accident took place in the middle of the right side road. In such
circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have fixed the entire liability on the
part of the deceased and dismissed the claim petition. Instead of doing so,
the Tribunal fixed the 90% liability on the part of the driver of the
appellant/Transport Corporation and passed an award in favour of the
claimants. Therefore, he prayed for setting aside the award dated
28.10.2020 passed by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.1 of 2019.
7.Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimants Mr.SP.Yuaraj,
made submissions supporting the award passed by the Tribunal.
8.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the
materials available on record.
9.It is the contention of the appellant/Transport Corporation that the
accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased.
In order to prove their defence, the driver of the bus was examined as
R.W.1. Further, it is contended that the deceased had no valid Driving
Licence and he had no proper knowledge of driving a two wheeler. As the
First Information Report was registered only against the driver of the bus
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1406 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.7273 of 2021
based on the eye witness-P.W.2, the Tribunal ought not to have rejected the
FIR. It is needless to mention that the contents of the FIR can be taken into
account, since it has come into existence at the earlier point of time. There is
nothing for the Court to disbelieve the contents of the FIR or to discard it on
any ground. FIR is the best piece of evidence to be taken cognizance of by
the Courts. The contents of the FIR can be inferred for the purpose of
forming a prima-facie opinion in a motor accident case.
10.It is evident from the records, even though there may be
negligence on the part of the deceased while driving the Motor Cycle, while
he was reaching the middle of the right side road, the driver of the bus
would have averted the accident. Likewise, if the allegation of the claimant
is true that the accident took place, when the deceased was riding in the left
side of the road, the accident could not taken place in the middle of the road.
Hence, the deceased also contributed negligence on the accident and we are
of the opinion that negligence on the part of the driver of the bus has to be
modified. Accordingly, by relying on the FIR and evidence on both sides,
this Court is of the view that the contributory negligence has to be modified
on both sides in the ratio of 65:35, i.e., 65% contributory negligence on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1406 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.7273 of 2021
part of the driver of the bus and 35% contributory negligence on the part of
the deceased.
11.The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.90,97,976/- as
compensation. Since the liability is fixed 65% on the part of the driver of
the bus, the appellant/Transport Corporation is liable to pay a sum of
Rs.59,13,684/- (65% of Rs.90,97,976/-) to the claimants.
12.In view of the above modifications, this Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal is partly allowed. The appellant/Transport Corporation is directed to
deposit the above modified award amount with accrued interest and costs,
less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of eight weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the
claimants/respondents are permitted to withdraw the award amount, less the
amount already withdrawn, if any, together with proportionate interest and
costs. The apportionment of shares as fixed by the Tribunal to the claimants
is hereby confirmed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous
Petition is closed.
(M.K.K.S.J.,) (V.S.G.J.,)
05.10.2021
Jer
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1406 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.7273 of 2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Speaking order: Yes / No
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Special District Court
Krishnagiri.
2.The Section Officer
VR Section
High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1406 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.7273 of 2021
K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.
and
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
Jer
C.M.A.No.1406 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.7273 of 2021
05.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
