Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs M.Suresh Kumar on 7 March, 2023
C.M.A.(MD).No.550 of 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 07.03.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
C.M.A(MD)No.550 of 2016
and
C.M.P(MD) No.6577 of 2016
The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Express Transport
Corporation Limited,
Division – 1,
Pallavan Salai,
Chennai – 2. ..... Appellant/ Respondent
-vs-
M.Suresh Kumar .... Respondent/ Petitioner
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree made in M.C.O.P. No.
3738 of 2013, dated 27.01.2014, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal/ Special Sub-Court, Tiruchirappalli.
For Appellant : Mr.P.Prabhakaran
For Respondent : No appearance
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.550 of 2016
JUDGMENT
The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the Transport
Corporation, challenging the Award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal/ Special Sub-Court, Tiruchirappalli.
2. The injured/ claimant had filed M.C.O.P.No.3738 of 2013, before the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Special Sub-Court, Tiruchirappalli
contending that he was travelling as a passenger in the appellant Transport
Corporation bus on 11.01.2006 from Trichy to Madurai. At that time, the
driver of the appellant Transport Corporation bus had driven the vehicle in a
rash and negligent manner and in an uncontrolled speed, met with an
accident, and due to the said accident, the claimant got injured. The claimant
had prayed for a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only).
3. The Transport Corporation has filed a counter contending that the
driver was driving the vehicle very slowly following the Traffic Rules and
Regulations. However, the lorry that was coming from behind the bus had
dashed against the backside portion of the bus, which resulted in uncontrolled
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.550 of 2016
movement of the bus. Therefore, according to the respondent/ Transport
Corporation only the lorry driver was responsible for the said accident.
However, after causing the accident, the said lorry had fled away and
therefore the lorry could not be identified. The Conductor of the bus had
lodged an FIR as against the said unknown lorry and its driver.
4. It is the specific stand of the claimant that the Transport Corporation
bus driver had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused
the accident by dashing the bus. There is no reference in the complaint with
regard to the dashing of the lorry from the backside of the bus. However, the
respondent Corporation has specifically pleaded that the bus was hit from its
back side by a rash and negligent driving of the lorry. Therefore, the entire
burden is upon the Transport Corporation to establish that the bus was hit by
a lorry on its rear side.
5. A perusal of the judgment would clearly indicate that the respondent
has not filed any documents, especially, the report of the Motor Vehicles
Inspector which would clearly disclose which portion of the bus got damaged
due to the accident. In case, if the bus was hit by a lorry on the back side, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.550 of 2016
Motor Vehicles Inspector's report would have clearly revealed about the
damage caused to the bus on its backside. However, the Corporation has not
chosen to mark the said report of the Motor Vehicle's Inspector. Therefore, the
contention of the Transport Corporation that the bus was hit from back side
by a lorry, is not legally sustainable.
6. The disability certificate reveals the disability at 34%. However, the
Tribunal had taken 32% as disability and proceeded to award a sum of Rs.
64,000/- (Rupees Sixty Four Thousand only) under the head of permanent
disability. The petitioner has claimed that the Tribunal has awarded a sum of
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) towards pain and suffering and
Transportation to Hospital and Extra nourishment of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand only). The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees
Two Thousand only) towards Medical Assistance, rendered by the others to
the petitioner in the hospital. The Medical Bills as per Ex.P.5 a sum of
Rs.34,195/- (Rupees Thirty Four Thousand One hundred and Ninety Five
only) has been awarded and a consolidated sum would be arrived at a sum of
Rs.1,20,195/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Thousand One Hundred and Ninety
Five only). This Court does not find that the quantum of compensation under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.550 of 2016
any one of the heads is exorbitant or unreasonable. Viewed from any angle I
do not find any merits in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
7. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed. There
shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition
is closed.
07.03.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
ebsi
To
1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Special Sub-Court,
Tiruchirappalli.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.550 of 2016
R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.
ebsi
C.M.A.(MD)No.550 of 2016
07.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
