Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs P.Britto Manoj on 11 December, 2023
Author: G.Chandrasekharan
Bench: G.Chandrasekharan
C.M.A(MD)No.1257 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 11.12.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN
C.M.A(MD)No.1257 of 2023
and
C.M.P(MD)No.16691 of 2023
1.The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,
Palavan Salai,
Chennai-629 162.
2.The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,
Nesamani Nagar,
Nagercoil. ... Appellant
.vs.
P.Britto Manoj ... Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of
Motor Vehicle Act, to set aside the order of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thoothukudi, made in M.C.O.P.No.
231 of 2017, dated 09.12.2022 and allow the appeal with costs.
For Appellants : Mr.S.Micheal Heldon Kumar
For Respondent : Mr.T.Selvakumaran
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.1257 of 2023
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed challenging the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.
231 of 2017, dated 09.12.2022, on the file of Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal / Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Thoothukudi.
2. The respondent filed the aforesaid claim petition seeking
compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- for the injuries and disability suffered in
the accident. It is claimed in the claim petition that on 07.02.2017 at
about 16.10 hours the respondent was riding his motorcycle bearing
Registration No.TN-75-Q-2191, with his wife as pillion rider in Alanchi
to Kurumpanai Road from south to north direction. When he was
nearing Inigo Nagar Bus Stop, the appellant Corporation bus bearing
Registration No.TN-74-N-1620 had come on the opposite direction in a
rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant's motorcycle.
As a result, the claimant suffered multiple injuries including fracture
injuries. He had undergone surgical treatment. He suffered disability in
the accident. He was working as fisherman and fish seller and earning a
sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. Due to the accident and disability
suffered, he is not able to work as he was used to work.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. This claim petition is opposed by the respondent claiming that
the Transport Corporation Bus driver was not responsible for the
accident. It was the respondent, who had come in a two wheeler in a rash
and negligent manner, crossed the midline of the road and hit against the
right bumper portion of the bus. Therefore, the motorcycle rider was
primarily responsible for the accident. The compensation claimed is
excessive.
4. During the enquiry before the Tribunal, on the side of the
claimant, P.W1 was examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P17 were marked and on
the side of the Transport Corporation, R.W1 was examined and Ex.R1
was marked.
5. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence, the learned
Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.6,22,665/- as compensation. Challenging
this award on the ground that when the respondent had contributed to the
accident, the Tribunal had omitted to apportion any liability to the
respondent for his contributory negligence in causing the accident. Thus,
this appeal is filed. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for
the appellant submitted that the First Information Report shows that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
injured/respondent had alone responsible for the accident.
6. In response, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted
that the Tribunal had rightly fixed the responsibility for causing the
accident on the Transport Corporation bus driver. After the accident, the
injured had been taken to the hospital for treatment and he was taking
treatment as inpatient. Taking advantage of his position, the Transport
Corporation bus driver had given a complaint, with the false allegation
alleging that the accident had happened because of the rash and negligent
driving of the two wheeler rider. First Information Report cannot form
basis for concluding that the respondent had contributed to the accident.
The alleged contributory aspect is not proved by the appellant.
7. Considered the rival submission and perused the records.
8. The only point required to be considered in this appeal is:
“Whether the respondent had contributed to the accident?”
9. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant,
Ex.P5 shows that the respondent had ridden the two wheeler in a rash
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and negligent manner, crossed the wrong side of the road and hit against
the right side of the bus. However, the complaint was given by the
appellant Corporation driver. Due to the injury suffered in the accident,
the respondent, probably was not able to go to police station and lodge a
complaint immediately. Once the Transport Corporation bus driver gave
the complaint, that was received and registered on the basis of the
allegation contained in the complaint. Both the parties have not produced
any oral evidence in support of their case for the manner, in which, the
accident had happened.
10. It is a case of the respondent that when he was going from
south-north keeping left side of the road, the bus driver had come in the
opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and caused the
accident. The case of the appellant is that the respondent who had come
to the wrong side of the road and caused the accident. The fact that the
accident had happened and the respondent suffered injuries and
disability, is not in dispute. In the absence of any independent oral
evidence in support of the manner in which the accident had happened,
the other best evidence available, is the Rough Sketch prepared by the
police. Unfortunately, the Rough Sketch is not marked as an exhibit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The Rough Sketch would have shown the exact place of the accident .
11. It is claimed by the appellant that the two wheeler rider had
come on the wrong side of the road and dashed against the Transport
Corporation bus. It is expected that the Rough Sketch prepared by the
police is be produced as an exhibit by the respondent. That was not done
in this case. The learned Tribunal, on going through the oral and
documentary evidence, had fixed that the Transport Corporation driver
alone was responsible for the accident. This Court is of the view that
when the respondent has not produced the copy of the Rough Sketch as
an exhibit, the interested testimony of RW1, namely, the Transport
Corporation bus driver cannot be taken into consideration. From the
manner in which the accident had happened, injuries suffered, this Court
is of the view that the responsibility/liability fixed on the Transport
Corporation bus driver for causing the accident needs no interference.
Accordingly, the finding, in this regard, arrived at by the learned Tribunal
is confirmed. The quantum of compensation is not challenged.
Therefore, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is also
confirmed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
12. In fine, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the
order passed by the Tribunal is upheld. The second appellant – Transport
Corporation is directed to deposit the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal, i.e., Rs.6,22,665/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per
annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation, less the
award amount already deposited, if any, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.231
of 2017, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Thoothukudi, within a period of four weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit being made by the
second appellant, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the same, less the
award amount if any already withdrawn, after following due process of
law. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Index :Yes/No 11.12.2023
Internet :Yes/No
NCC :Yes/No
cp
To
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/
Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Thoothukudi.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.CHANDRASEKHARAN,J.
cp
11.12.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
