Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 9019 Mad
Judgement Date : 26 July, 2023
CMA No.2527 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26.07.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
C.M.A.No.2527 of 2022
and C.M.P. No.19633 of 2022
The Managing Director,
Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd.,
Pallavan Salai,
Chennai – 2. .. Appellant
Vs.
1.Mrs.Abiramasundari
2.Mr.Rajan .. Respondents
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree dated 19.11.2021 made
in MCOP.No.1754 of 2019 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal (Special Sub Court No.2), Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.A.Vinothraj
For Respondents : Mr.Navaneetha Krishnan
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No.2527 of 2022
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the
appellant/Transport Corporation questioning the impugned award of the
Tribunal.
2. The appellant / Transport Corporation is the second respondent in
MCOP.No.1754 of 2019, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Special Sub Court No.2, Small Causes Court, Chennai.
3. According to the respondents, on the date of accident, while the
deceased was travelling as a passenger in the MTC Bus belonging to the
appellant from Vaishanava College to house at Tondiarpet, at T.II Road, Near
Corporation Zonal Office IV, suddenly a dog crossed the road due to which
the driver of the bus applied sudden break. In the said impact, the deceased
fell down from the front door of the bus and back wheel tyre ran over him.
He was immediately admitted in the Govt. Stanley hospital. Inspite of
treatment, he died in the hospital. Hence, the respondents filed the claim
petition claiming a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- as compensation against the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No.2527 of 2022
respondent.
4. The appellant filed counter denying the averments made in the claim
petition. According to the appellant, the bus was proceeding slowly on
Thiruvottriyur high road. While nearing Tondiarpet Corporation Zonal office,
the deceased taking advantage of the slow motion of the bus, alighted from
the bus through the front entrance, lost balance, fell down and caught on the
left rear wheel of the bus and invited the accident. The driver of the bus is not
responsible for the accident and hence the appellant is not liable to pay any
compensation to the appellants. The compensation claimed by the
respondents is highly excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
5. The 2nd respondent examined himself as PW1 and one Manoharan,
eye witness to the accident was examined as PW2. Thirteen documents were
marked as Exs.P.1 to Exs.P.13. On the side of the appellant, the driver of the
bus was examined as RW1 and two documents were marked as Exs.R1 & R2.
6. The Tribunal after considering the evidence and documents filed on
the side of the appellant as well as respondents, held that the accident
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No.2527 of 2022
occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus belonging
to the appellant and directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.19,24,400/- as
compensation to the respondents. Aggrieved over the said award, the
appellant / Transport Corporation has filed the present appeal.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the
Tribunal erred in fixing the liability on the appellant. The deceased attempted
to get down from the moving bus, fell down and invited the accident. The
deceased alone is responsible for the accident and hence the appellant is not
liable to pay any compensation to the respondents. On the complaint given by
one Sankarapandian, FIR was registered in Crime No.23 of 2019. Upon
investigation, it was found that the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant
was not rash and negligent in driving the bus. The learned counsel further
submitted that the driver of the bus was examined as RW1 and the Tribunal
had not considered his evidence while fixing the liability on the appellant and
prayed for setting aside the award of the Tribunal.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No.2527 of 2022
contended that PW1 & PW2 have clearly stated in their deposition that the
accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver
of the bus belonging to the appellant. Therefore, the Tribunal had rightly
accepted the evidence of PW1 & PW2 to hold that the appellant/Transport
Corporation is liable to pay the compensation to the respondents and prayed
for dismissal of the appeal.
9. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as
respondents and perused the materials available on record.
10. The only question involved in the instant appeal is whether the
Tribunal is right in fixing the liability on the appellant to pay the
compensation to the respondents.
11. From the materials on record, it is seen that the respondents have
examined PW1 & PW2 to prove the manner of accident. PW2 who is an eye-
witness to the accident has deposed that the deceased fell down from the bus
due to the sudden break applied by the driver of the bus. Though he was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No.2527 of 2022
cross examined on the side of the appellant, nothing was elicited to discredit
his version. RW1, the driver of the bus has admitted in the cross examination
that the deceased was standing inside the bus when the accident took place.
This would contradict the version of the appellant that the deceased attempted
to alight from the moving bus, fell down from the bus and invited the
accident.
12. Considering the evidence adduced on behalf of the respondents and
the evidence of RW1, driver of the bus, this court is the view that the
respondents have established that the accident occurred only due to the rash
and negligent driving by the driver of the bus belonging to the
appellant/Transport Corporation. Hence, the finding of the Tribunal fixing the
liability on the appellant / Transport Corporation cannot be faulted. Further,
the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is also just and
reasonable and hence the same is confirmed.
13. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed
confirming the award passed by the Tribunal in MCOP.No.1754 of 2019.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No.2527 of 2022
The appellant/Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the compensation
amount awarded by the Tribunal alongwith interest and costs, less the
amount already deposited if any, within a period of six (6) weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the respondents
are permitted to withdrawn the award amount alongwith interest and costs, on
the basis of apportionment fixed by the Tribunal, less the amount, if any
already withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous
Petition is closed.
26.07.2023
To
1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special Sub Court No.2), Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
2. The Section Officer, VR Section High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No.2527 of 2022
SUNDER MOHAN, J
rgr
C.M.A.No.2527 of 2022
26.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!