The Managing Director vs Velammal
2022 Latest Caselaw 15564 Mad

                                                                     C.M.A(MD)No.884 of 2022



                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                              DATE : 20.09.2022

                                                   CORAM

                           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR

                                         C.M.A(MD)No.884 of 2022
                                                   and
                                         C.M.P.(MD)No.8466 of 2022


                  The Managing Director,
                  Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
                  (Kumbakonam) Limited,
                  Karaikudi.                                : Appellant /Respondent


                                                Vs.


                  Velammal                                        : Respondent/Claimant


                  PRAYER:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
                  Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the impugned award passed in M.C.O.P.
                  No.57 of 2016, dated 23.09.2019 on the file of the MACT (Sub Court),
                  Aruppukottai.


                                    For Appellant : Mr.P.M.Vishnuvarthanan




                  1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                         C.M.A(MD)No.884 of 2022



                                              JUDGMENT

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the judgment and

decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.57 of 2016, dated 23.09.2019 on the file of the

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Aruppukottai.

2.The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that their bus

was not at all involved in the accident; that the deceased drove his two

wheeler without helmet and dashed against the private bus and sustained

injuries; that the Corporation Bus driver was in no way connected with the

alleged occurrence and that since the private bus driver had taken the bus

without halting at that place and since the Corporation bus was available at

the occurrence place, the Police has registered the FIR mechanically and that

the Tribunal has fixed the entire negligence on the side of the appellant

Corporation and on that basis, passed the impugned award.

3. No doubt, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the

appellant, they have examined the bus driver as R.W.1 and in his chief

examination evidence, he would say that the bus driven by him bearing

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A(MD)No.884 of 2022

Registration No. TN-63-N-1542 was not responsible for the accident; that

two wheeler was proceeding at a distance 50 meters ahead of the Corporation

bus and that the two wheeler dashed against a private bus and the two

wheeler got fire and on seeing the same, R.W.1 has turned the bus towards

left side and stopped the bus.

4. But, it is pertinent to note that such a defence was not at all taken in

the counter statement. The appellant has not raised any such stand that their

bus was not at all involved in the accident.

5. Moreover, in the counter statement, the appellant has taken a stand

that the deceased while attempting to take over the Corporation Bus and also

the private bus lost his balance and dashed against the front left side pumper

and invited the accident.

6. Admittedly, the appellant has not produced any evidence to prove

the version of R.W.1 regarding the manner of the accident. It is settled law

that any amount of evidence without pleadings or any amount of pleadings

without evidence are of no use. The appellant has not adduced any other

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A(MD)No.884 of 2022

evidence, except the examination of R.W.1, to prove that the deceased had

dashed against the private bus and sustained injuries and that the Corporation

bus was in no way connected with the alleged accident.

7. Considering the evidence available, the finding of the trial Court that

the rash and negligent of the driving of the bus driver was responsible for the

accident, cannot be found fault with.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that they are not

disputing the quantum of award arrived at by the Tribunal. Considering the

above, this Court concludes that the appeal is devoid of merits and the same

is liable to be dismissed.

9. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the

impugned award, dated 23.09.2019, M.C.O.P.No.57 of 2016, on the file of

the MACT (Sub Court), Aruppukottai,, is confirmed. No costs. Consequently,

connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

20.09.2022 Index : Yes : No Internet : Yes : No das

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A(MD)No.884 of 2022

To

1.The MACT (Sub Court), Aruppukottai.

2.The Record Keeper, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A(MD)No.884 of 2022

K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.

das

C.M.A(MD)No.884 of 2022 and C.M.P.(MD)No.8466 of 2022

20.09.2022

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis