Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs Rajeshwari on 20 September, 2022
C.M.A.(MD)No.619 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 20.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
C.M.A.(MD)No.619 of 2022
and C.M.P.(MD)No.5342 of 2022
The Managing Director,
Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation,
Kumbakonam,
Trichirapalli ... Appellant/Respondent
Vs.
1. Rajeshwari
2. Aavan
3. Pitchammal
4. Shanmugavel ... Respondents
Prayer : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicle Act, 1988, to set aside the impugned award passed in M.C.O.P.No.1035
of 2017 dated 18.01.2021 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Special District Judge), Trichy.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Madasamy
For Respondents : No appearance
1/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.619 of 2022
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order passed in
M.C.O.P.No.1035 of 2017 dated 18.01.2021 on the file of the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (Special District Judge), Trichy.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the deceased
drove his two wheeler along with his friend in a drunken mood and voluntarily
dashed against the Corporation bus and that the Tribunal, without considering
the evidence in a proper perspective, has fixed negligence on the bus driver
and passed the impugned order.
3. No doubt, the appellant has taken such a stand that the deceased
had driven the vehicle in a drunken mood and he alone was responsible for
the accident.
4. It is seen from the records that the respondents have examined an
eyewitness as P.W.2 and he would say that the rashness and negligence of the
bus driver was responsible for the accident and that his evidence was not
challenged.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.619 of 2022
5. Moreover, the appellant has examined his driver as R.W.1 and in his
cross-examination, he would admit that FIR came to be registered against
him, that Departmental action was also taken against him and his licence has
been cancelled temporarily for a period of six months and that he was not on
duty during the said period of six months.
6. The learned trial Judge, considering the evidence adduced, by
observing that the appellant has not produced any materials or evidence to
show that the deceased had driven the vehicle in a drunken mood and caused
accident, has come to a right decision that the rash and negligent driving of
the bus driver caused the accident and he was responsible.
7. Considering the evidence available on record, the finding of the
Tribunal, mulcting the liability on the bus driver cannot be found fault with.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that they are not
disputing the quantum of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal.
9. Considering the above, this Court concludes that the appeal is devoid
of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.619 of 2022
K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.
csm
10. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
20.09.2022
Index :yes/No
Internet:yes/No
csm
C.M.A.(MD)No.619 of 2022
and C.M.P.(MD)No.5342 of 2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
