The Managing Director vs Jothi
2023 Latest Caselaw 6339 Mad

                                                                                 C.M.A.No.388 of 2021

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                    DATED : 15.06.2023

                                                          CORAM

                            THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
                                             AND
                      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHACHAKRAVARTHY

                                                  C.M.A.No.388 of 2021
                                                          and
                                                  C.M.P.No.2571 of 2021

                     The Managing Director,
                     M/s. TamilNadu State Transport
                     Corporation Limited,
                     Bharathipuram,
                     Dharmapuri                                            ... Appellant

                                                            Vs.
                     1. Jothi

                     2. Minor Priyadharshini,
                        D/o Late Radhakrishnan
                        (Minor rep. by their
                         NF/Mother Jothi)

                     3. Valliammal,
                        W/o Late Venkatasamy                               ...Respondents

                                  Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
                     Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2020
                     made in M.C.O.P.No.591 of 2019 on the file of the Motor Accident
                     Claims Tribunal/ Special District Court, Krishnagiri.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                     Page 1/5
                                                                                  C.M.A.No.388 of 2021

                                       For Appellants     : Mr.K.Ponraj
                                                            for D.Raghu

                                       For Respondents : L.Munusamy

                                                    JUDGMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the judgment

and decree of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Krishnagiri, dated

31.01.2020 in M.C.O.P.No.591/2019, aggrieved by the fixation of

liability itself.

2. Heard Mr.K.Ponraj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

appellant.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant, taking this Court to the

manner in which the accident had happened, would submit that the

stretch relevant to the accident is the accident prone zone and all the

drivers have already been instructed to drive slowly and cautiously.

Without following the caution, the deceased drove the vehicle in a high

speed which resulted in the accident and the Tribunal did not give any

rebate for the contributory negligence. Therefore, he would submit that

the appeal is to be allowed.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondents would submit that the evidence of RW1, a witness examined https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2/5 C.M.A.No.388 of 2021

on behalf of the appellant/respondent itself would support the case of the

respondent/petitioner and therefore, the appeal has to be dismissed.

5. We have considered the rival submissions made on either side

and perused the material records of the case.

6. The only point arises for consideration in this appeal is that

whether the deceased drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner

and it was the sole cause of the accident.

7. Perusal of the records shows that actually when the deceased

was driving the bus near the speed breaker, there was break down, which

resulted in the driver losing control of the bus, which resulted in head

injuries to the deceased and succumbed to the head injuries. Contrary

case of the appellant herein is that the rash and negligent driving of the

deceased himself. In order to prove the same, they examined the

conductor as RW1. However, it is the seen that the conductor had also

deposed in the lines of the case of the petitioner and had not supported

their case. Therefore, when there is no evidence on record to support the

case of the appellant regarding the rash and negligent driving of the

deceased, the Appeal has to fail. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous

Appeal fails and the same stands dismissed.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 3/5 C.M.A.No.388 of 2021

8. It is stated that 50% of the award amount has been deposited.

The balance 50% along with accrued interest is directed to be deposited

by the appellant within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of

a copy of this order. It goes without saying that the 1st respondent/

claimant (wife) and the 3rd respondent/claimant(mother) will be entitled

to withdraw the entire sum as apportioned by the Tribunal and 1st

respondent/claimant will also be entitled to withdraw the accrued interest

once in three months in respect of the minor share. There will be no

order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is

closed.

                                                                      (J.N.B,J.)    (D.B.C, J.)
                     Index             : Yes / No                           15.06.2023
                     Internet          : Yes
                     vsi


                     To

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, / Special District Court, Krishnagiri..

J. NISHA BANU, J.

and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4/5 C.M.A.No.388 of 2021

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY,J.

vsi

C.M.A.No.388 of 2021

15.06.2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 5/5