Madras High Court
M/S. Tamil Nadu State Transport ... vs Arumugam on 7 September, 2022
C.M.A.(MD)No.1108 of 2009
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 07.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.A. NAKKIRAN
C.M.A.(MD)No.1108 of 2009 and
MP(MD).No.2 of 2009
M/s. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited,
(Madurai Division – 4),
by its Managing Director,
Periyamilaguparai,
Trichirappalli. ... Appellant/Respondent
Vs.
Arumugam ... Respondent/Petitioner
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgement and Decree passed in
MCOP.No.2096 of 2002, dated 01.04.2008, on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal / I Additional District Court (PCR),
Trichirappalli.
For Appellant : Mr. M.Prakash
For Respondent : Mr.K.Govinda rajan
*****
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.1108 of 2009
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the
appellant / Transport Corporation against the Judgement and Decree
passed in MCOP.No.2096 of 2002, dated 01.04.2008 on the file of the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / I Additional District Court (PCR),
Trichirappalli.
2. The respondent / claimant filed the said claim petition in
MCOP.No.2096 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, I Additional District Court (PCR), Trichirappalli, claiming a sum
of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation, for the death of one Deivanai @
Nagavalli.
3. The facts of the case is that on 08.05.1999 at about 5.45
am, the deceased and one another person was standing on the southern side
of Salem – Tiruchirappalli main road at Kodiyampalayam. At that time, the
appellant's vehicle bearing Regn.No. TN 45 N 0210 was driven by its
driver in a rash and negligent manner and caused the death of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.1108 of 2009
respondent's wife viz., Deivanai @ Nagavalli. The legal heir of the
deceased, who is the respondent herein filed the claim petition.
4. The Tribunal, considering the pleadings, oral and
documentary evidence, awarded a total sum of Rs.2,87,000/- as
compensation.
5. Aggrieved by the said Award, the appellant / Transport
Corporation has filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted
that on the date of accident, the vehicle was driven by one Balakrishnan
not by Nagarajan. But, the charge sheet has been filed against one
Nagarajan. He would further submit that the said accident is alleged one
and there is no accident as such on that day. He would further submit that
Tribunal failed to consider the evidence of RW.1 – Nagarajan and Ex.R1-
Trip Sheet to prove the alleged accident and prayed for allowing this
appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.1108 of 2009
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
submitted that because of the driver of the appellant's Transport
Corporation bus only the said accident had occurred and the learned Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal Judge also observed that the above accident
happened due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the appellant's
vehicle. He would further submit that the First Information Report has
also been registered against the appellant driver of the appellant Transport
Corporation bus alone and hence, the appeal may be dismissed.
8. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for parties and
perused all the materials available on record.
9. On a perusal of the counter statement filed by the appellant
before the Tribunal it is seen that the appellant never agitated with regard
to the name of the driver of the vehicle and they have also not putforth any
question to the witnesses in this regard. A perusal of the records would
show that PW.2- Meenakshi, who was examined as one of the witnesses
stated in her evidence that the driver of the appellant Transport
Corporation only drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.1108 of 2009
caused accident. The appellant has not putforth any specific question to
PW.2 and they have not examined any of the witnesses to prove the above
said contention. The First Information Report was registered against one
Nagarajan and that the charge sheet has also been filed against the said
Nagarajan. The learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Judge has
rightly observed that the appellant / Transport Corporation has not proved
by examining any of the evidences or producing documents that the
above said vehicle was driven by Balakrishnan and not by Nagarajan at the
time of accident. Hence, the learned Judge came to the conclusion only
after appreciating all the materials on record in proper perspective and
hence, there is no error warranting interference by this Court for such
finding.
10. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is confirmed. The appellant /
Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the entire award amount to the
credit of M.C.O.P.No.2096 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal / I Additional District Court (PCR), Trichirappalli, less
the amount already deposited, if any, along with accrued interest at the rate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.1108 of 2009
of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit
and costs, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy
of this Judgment.
11. On such deposit being made, the respondent / claimant is
entitled to withdraw the entire amount, with interest by making necessary
application before the Tribunal. No costs. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
07.09.2022
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
trp
To
1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Dindigul.
2.The Record Keeper,
V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.1108 of 2009
A.A. NAKKIRAN, J.,
trp
C.M.A.(MD)No.1108 of 2009 and
MP(MD).No.2 of 2009
07.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
