Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs Jerinbegam on 11 April, 2022
C.M.A.No.3329 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
C.M.A.No.3329 of 2021
and
C.M.P.No.18953 of 2021
The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,
Villupuram. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Jerinbegam
2.Riswan Sulthana
3.Mohamed Navith Imran
4.Sulthana Rajiya, Kadharmozhin
5.Saburathbegam
6.The Manager,
Royal Sundaram Alliance
Insurance Company Ltd.,
No.45, Whites Road,
Chennai. ... Respondents
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3329 of 2021
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act 1988 to set aside the Decree and Judgment dated 13.11.2017 made
in MCOP No.347 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III
Additional District Judge, Kallakurichi.
For Appellant : Mr.K.J.Sivakumar
For Respondents : Mr.M.Sudharsan for
Mr.N.Damodaran for R1 to R3
Mr.G.Vasudevan for R6
R4-died
R5-unclaimed
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.]
The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation has come up with this appeal
assailing the Judgment and Decree passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, III Additional District Judge, Kallakurichi in MCOP No.347 of 2012
dated 13.11.2017.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3329 of 2021
2. Facts necessary for disposal of the appeal would run thus:-
The claimants are legal heirs of deceased Hakkeem. According to them,
he was travelling in a car as passenger on 23.08.2009 and at 02.30 p.m, when the
car was proceedings near Thiyagadurgam, it is alleged that the driver of the
appellant bus drove it in a rash and negligent manner and rammed the car. In the
accident, he sustained fatal injury and died on the spot. The claimants are his
wife and minor children. According to them, the deceased was earning
Rs.50,000/- per month by doing business and he died at the age of 50 years. On
account of the death due to the negligence of the driver of the bus, they are
entitled for compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-.
3.In order to prove the negligence, they examined P.W.2-Gopal and marked
Ex.P.1-Xerox copy of the F.I.R. On the side of the respondent, two witnesses
were examined and Exs.R.1 to R3, Judgment copy of C.C.No.66/2011, Copy of
Rough Sketch and Charge Sheet were marked.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3329 of 2021
4.After analyzing the evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident
happened due to the negligence of the driver of the appellant bus. While deciding
the quantum, the Tribunal fixed annual income of the deceased as Rs.4,12,210/-
based on the income tax receipts (Ex.P.3) and awarded total compensation of
Rs.40,69,000/-.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant Mr.K.J.Sivakumar would
vehemently contend that in the other claim petitions arising out of the same
accident, the same Tribunal has held that both the drivers are equally responsible
for the accident, but only in this case, it has been decided that the driver of the
appellant Corporation bus was solely responsible.
6.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent
Mr.G.Vasudevan would argue that the finding on negligence has been rendered in
this case on appreciation of evidence produced by the claimants. It is also stated
that the First Information Report was registered only against the driver of the
appellant/Corporation bus and hence, no interference is necessary.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3329 of 2021
7. In the instant case, there is no quarrel over the quantum awarded by the
Tribunal and this appeal has been filed to decide the negligence aspect.
8.Perusal of the order passed in MCOP No.400 of 2012 would reveal that
the same Tribunal has held that both the drivers of vehicles, namely, car and bus
were equally responsible for the accident. It is stated that the award amount has
been satisfied by the appellant as well as the third respondent/Insurance
Company. In other words, it is stated that the finding on the negligence arising
out of the same accident passed in MCOP No.400 of 2012 has become final.
Similarly, in respect of other claims, the Tribunal has given the same finding.
9.In the light of the above fact, we are of the opinion that the negligence
fixed by the Tribunal cannot be countenanced, hence, the same is set aside. In our
opinion that since the accident had taken place due to the negligence of both the
vehicles' driver, they are equally responsible for the accident. Hence, while
confirming the award amount of Rs.40,69,000/-, the appellant/Transport
Corporation as well as the third respondent/Insurance Company are liable to pay
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3329 of 2021
the award amount equally along with interest and costs fixed by the Tribunal.
10.With the above modification, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly
allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[M.K.K.S.,J.] [V.S.G.,J.]
11.04.2022
Intex : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
skn
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
III Additional District Judge,
Kallakurichi.
2.The Section Officer
V.R.Section,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3329 of 2021
K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.
and
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
skn
JUDGMENT MADE IN
C.M.A.No.3329 of 2021
and
C.M.P.No.18953 of 2021
11.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
