Madras High Court
Director Of Rural Development And ... vs N.Raju on 1 September, 2023
C.M.A. No.1775 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.09.2023
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
C.M.A. No.1775 of 2018 and
CMP No.13704 of 2018
Director of Rural Development and Panchayat
Panagal Building,
Saidapet - 15 ... Appellant
Vs.
N.Raju ... Respondent
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated
07.11.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Sub
Court No.1, Small Causes Court) Chennai, in M.C.O.P. No.3689 of 2013.
For Appellant : Mr.P.Harish
Government Advocate (CS)
For Respondent : No Appearance
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. No.1775 of 2018
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed to set aside the
Judgment and Decree dated 07.11.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Special Sub Court No.1, Small Causes Court) Chennai, in
M.C.O.P. No.3689 of 2013.
2. The respondent is the claimant and the appellant herein is the
owner of the offending vehicle.
3. The respondent herein had filed a claim petition before the
Tribunal in M.C.O.P. No.3689 of 2013 claiming compensation of
Rs.15,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that
occurred on 31.01.2011 stating that on 31.01.2011 at about 6.15 hours, when
he was riding his Hero Honda Splender Motor Cycle bearing Regn. No.TN-
09-AE-6169 towards Guindy from Tambaram on GST Road, in front of the
Airport Bridge, a Government Car bearing Regn. No.TN-09-G-2230, driven
by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with dangerous speed on the left
side of the road, suddenly took turn to the right side of the road without any
indication and hit against the claimant's vehicle due to which, the claimant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. No.1775 of 2018
sustained grievous injuries. Thereby, the appellant herein, as the owner of the
vehicle is liable to pay compensation.
4. In order to substantiate the case of the claimant, on the side of
the claimant, 2 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and 28
documents were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.28. On the side of the respondent,
one witness was examined as R.W.1 and no documentary evidence was let in.
5. The Tribunal, after hearing the arguments on either side and
considering the materials, came to the conclusion that the appellant/owner of
the bus is liable to pay compensation to the tune of 90% after deducting 10%
for the contributory negligence committed by the Injured/claimant namely
Mr.N.Raju and awarded compensation of Rs.5,07,600/- with cost and interest
at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till
the realization, payable by the appellant (after deducting the 10% for the
contributory negligence committed by Mr.N.Raju/the claimant on the sum of
Rs.5,64,000/-).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. No.1775 of 2018
6. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant/Director of Rural
Development and Panchayat who is the owner of the offending bus, has filed
the present appeal before this Court.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant/Director of Rural
Development and Panchayat would submit that the respondent/claimant had
already filed an appeal in CMA No.1210 of 2018 against the Award of the
Tribunal questioning the 10% contributory negligence fastened upon him and
the same was decided by this Court on 13.10.2022 wherein, this Court has set
aside the order of the Tribunal regarding fixing of 10% contributory
negligence on the respondent/claimant and that the appellant/Rural
Development and Panchayat has not filed any appeal challenging the said
findings. Further, the learned counsel fairly conceded that the appellant/
Rural Development and Panchayat is not going to file any appeal against the
said findings and they are ready to obey the order of this Court in the said
appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. No.1775 of 2018
9. Once this Court already decided the issue of contributory
negligence and fixed the entire negligence on the part of the appellant/Rural
Development and Panchayat in the appeal in C.M.A.No.1210 of 2018 which
arose out of the very same accident and the very same order of the Tribunal,
this Court cannot take a different view as there cannot be two different views
on the very same issue. Further, the appellant/Rural Development and
Panchayat, is also not ready to challenge the said Judgement. Therefore, there
is no merit in the appeal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
10. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is Dismissed.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
01.09.2023
ksa-2
Index : Yes / No
Speaking Order : Yes / No
Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Special Sub Court No.1, Small Causes Court) Chennai.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. No.1775 of 2018
P.VELMURUGAN. J.
ksa-2
C.M.A. No.1775 of 2018
01.09.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
