Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs S.Subramanian on 20 September, 2022
C.M.A.(MD)No.853 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.853 of 2022
and C.M.P.(MD)No.8086 of 2022
The Managing Director,
M/s.Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,
Kumbakonam Division-II,
Periyamilaguparai,
Trichy – 1. ... Appellant/Respondent
Vs.
1. S.Subramanian
2. S.Sundari
3. S.Vivekanandan
4. S.Gayathiri ... Respondents/Claimants
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.2559
of 2013 dated 25.11.2019 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Special District Judge), Tiruchirappalli.
For Appellant : Mr.P.M.Vishnuvarthanan
For Respondents : No appearance
1/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.853 of 2022
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order passed in
M.C.O.P.No.2559 of 2013 dated 25.11.2019 on the file of the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Tiruchirappalli.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that they are
disputing the liability mulcted on the appellant.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Tribunal,
without considering the fact that the cyclist is also responsible for the accident,
has mulcted responsibility only on the appellant/respondent therein.
4. It is seen from the records that the respondents have examined an
eyewitness as P.W.2 and he would say that when the deceased was riding his
cycle on the left side of the road, the bus driver drove the bus in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed behind the deceased and caused the accident.
5. The learned trial Judge, by observing that the appellant has examined
his driver as R.W.1 and has taken a stand that the criminal case was ended
into acquittal and they have not produced the copy of the judgment and taking
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.853 of 2022
note of the documents, particularly, the Rough Sketch drawn by the
Investigating Officer along with FIR and the evidence of P.W.2, has rightly
come to a decision that the accident was occurred due to the rash and
negligent driving of the bus driver.
6. Considering the above finding of the Tribunal, the liability mulcted on
the bus driver cannot be found fault with.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that they are not
disputing the quantum of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal. Hence,
this Court concludes that the appeal is devoid of merits and the same is liable
to be dismissed.
8. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.853 of 2022
K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.
csm
C.M.A.(MD)No.853 of 2022
and C.M.P.(MD)No.8086 of 2022
20.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
