The Managing Director vs Syed Ali
2024 Latest Caselaw 17340 Mad

Madras High Court

The Managing Director vs Syed Ali on 3 September, 2024

                                                                    C.M.A.(MD) No.1145 of 2024

                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                               DATED : 03.09.2024

                                                      CORAM

                                  THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

                                           C.M.A.(MD) No.1145 of 2024
                                                     and
                                           C.M.P.(MD)No.12059 of 2024



                    The Managing Director,
                    Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
                    Kumbakonam Division,
                    Karaikudi.                                             ... Appellant
                                                     Vs.

                    Syed Ali.                                              ... Respondent

                    Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under 173 of the Motor Vehicle
                    Act, 1988, against the order dated 30.08.2011 in M.C.O.P.No.23 of 2010
                    on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial
                    Magistrate, Ramanathapuram.
                                   For Appellant        : S.Michael Heldon Kumar
                                   For Respondent       : No appearance
                                                     *****
                                                  JUDGMENT

The instant appeal has been filed challenging the finding on

negligence of the Tribunal.

_____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2. The respondent filed a claim petition stating that on 10.04.2008

at about 11.00 p.m., while he was traveling in a bus bearing registration

No.TN-63-N-0857 belonging to the appellant, the driver drove the bus in

a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which, he was thrown out of

the bus and sustained grievous injuries.

3. The appellant/Transport Corporation filed a counter denying the

averments and stated that the respondent had attempted to jump out of the

running bus and therefore, fell down and sustained injuries.

4. The respondent/claimant examined himself and the Doctor as

P.W.1 and P.W.2, respectively, and marked Exs.P1 to P15. The

appellant/Transport Corporation examined the driver of the bus as R.W.1

and did not marked any documents

5. The Tribunal, after taking into consideration the oral and

documentary evidence, held that the accident took place due to the rash

and negligent driving of the bus driver and directed the appellant to pay

the compensation of Rs.2,31,000/-.

_____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

6. The learned counsel for the appellant/Transport Corporation

submitted that the finding of the Tribunal on negligence is contrary to the

evidence on record and prayed for setting aside the award.

7. The only point for consideration is ‘whether the finding on

negligence by the Tribunal is justified?’

8. On perusal of the award, this Court finds that the Tribunal, after

taking into consideration the oral evidence of P.W.1, Ex.P1-FIR, Ex.P3-

rough sketch, Ex.P5-the report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector and Ex.P6-

Charge Sheet filed by the Police against the driver of the bus, held that the

accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver.

The Tribunal, therefore, disbelieved the evidence of R.W.1-driver of the

bus, in the light of the above evidence adduced by the claimant. Hence,

this Court is of the view that there is no infirmity in the said finding of

negligence. Further, the learned counsel for the appellant/Transport

Corporation is unable to point out any infirmity in the quantum of

compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, this Court is of the

view that the award of the Tribunal is just and reasonable and no

interference is called for. Hence, the compensation awarded by the

_____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Tribunal has to be confirmed and hence, confirmed.

9. The appellant/Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the

compensation of Rs.2,31,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Thirty One

Thousand only) together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from

the date of the claim petition till the date of realization (excluding the

period of dismissal for default if any) and costs, less the amount already

deposited, if any, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of

receipt of a copy of this order.

10. On such deposit, the respondent/claimant is entitled to withdraw

the aforesaid amount together with proportionate interest and costs, less

the amount already withdrawn, if any, by filing an appropriate application

before the Tribunal.

11. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No

costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

03.09.2024 Index: Yes/ No NCC: Yes / No Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order apd

_____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

To:

1.Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram.

2.The Record Keeper, V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

_____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

SUNDER MOHAN, J.

apd

03.09.2024

_____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis