Madras High Court
The General Manager vs Kaliaperumal on 11 September, 2024
C.M.A.(MD) Nos.1047 & 1048 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 11.09.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
C.M.A.(MD) Nos.1047 & 1048 of 2024
and
C.M.P.(MD) Nos.10943 & 10945 of 2024
The General Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,
Pugaivandi Nilaya Salai,
Kumbakonam, Branch Manager Office,
Karanthai, Thanajavur District. ... Appellant in
C.M.A.(MD)No.1047/24
The Managing Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,
Railway Station Road,
Kumbakonam, Branch Manager Office,
Karanthai, Thanajavur. ... Appellant in
C.M.A.(MD)No.1048/24
Vs.
1.Kaliaperumal
S/o.Velan
2.Parameswari
W/o.Kaliaperumal ... Respondents in
C.M.A.(MD)No.1047/24
1.K.Vairakannu
S/o.Kathan
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No. 1 of 11
C.M.A.(MD) Nos.1047 & 1048 of 2024
2.V.Kaveriyammal
W/o.Vairakannu ... Respondents in
C.M.A.(MD)No.1048/24
Common Prayer:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 173 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to set aside the common Judgment dated
27.06.2023 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [Special
District Court], Thanjavur, in M.C.O.P.Nos.402 & 403 of 2020.
For Appellant
in both C.M.As. : Mr.S.Micheal Heldon Kumar
For Respondents
C.M.As. : Mr.A.Sivasubramanian
COMMON JUDGMENT
The instant appeals have been filed by the Tamil Nadu State
Transport Corporation, challenging the finding on negligence by the
Tribunal in the common award dated 27.06.2023, passed in M.C.O.P.Nos.
402 & 403 of 2020, which were filed by the dependents of the rider and
the pillion rider of the two-wheeler.
2. The respondents in both appeals filed the claim petitions before
the Tribunal stating that on 15.01.2020, at about 08:30 p.m., while the
deceased were travelling in their two-wheeler, the bus belonging to the
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD) Nos.1047 & 1048 of 2024
appellant, State Transport Corporation, came in the opposite direction in a
rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two-wheeler, as a result
of which both the rider and the pillion rider sustained fatal injuries.
3. The appellant, State Transport Corporation, filed a counter before
the Tribunal denying the averments made in the claim petitions and
stating that the accident took place only because of the two-wheeler rider,
and in any case, the compensation claimed was excessive.
4. The claimants examined P.W.1 to P.W.3 and marked Exs.P1 to
P18. The respondent examined R.W.1 and marked Exs.R1 and R2.
5. The Tribunal, after taking into consideration the oral and
documentary evidence, held that the accident took place only due to the
negligence of the bus driver and directed the appellant to pay the
compensation of Rs.19,27,400/- in M.C.O.P.No.402 of 2020, which is
subject matter of C.M.A.(MD) No.1047 of 2024, and Rs.19,27,400/- in
M.C.O.P.No.403 of 2020, which is subject matter of C.M.A.(MD) No.
1048 of 2024.
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD) Nos.1047 & 1048 of 2024
6. The learned counsel for the appellant, State Transport
Corporation, submitted that the evidence of P.W.3, who is a relative of the
deceased, cannot be believed; that his presence in the scene of occurrence
is highly doubtful; that the evidence of R.W.1, the bus driver, inspires
confidence; that Exs.R1 and R2, which are the Chemical Analysis Reports
for both the deceased, suggest that both the deceased were under the
influence of alcohol at the relevant point of time; that the evidence further
suggests that both the deceased did not wear helmet and the rider of the
two-wheeler did not have a valid driving licence; that even according to
the evidence of P.W.3, it was a head-on collision; and that considering all
the facts, the Tribunal ought to have fixed the contributory negligence on
the rider and the pillion rider of the two-wheeler.
7. The learned counsel for the respondents/claimants, per contra,
submitted that the evidence of P.W.3 has not been controverted, except
for the examination of the bus driver, who is an interested witness, and
that merely because the pillion rider had consumed alcohol, contributory
negligence cannot be presumed and that there is no evidence to show that
the deceased did not wear the helmet and the rider of the two-wheeler did
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD) Nos.1047 & 1048 of 2024
not have a valid driving licence, and therefore, the award of the Tribunal
is just and reasonable and has to be confirmed.
8. The only point for consideration in the instant appeal is whether
the finding on negligence by the Tribunal is justified.
9. The claimants had examined P.W.3, the eyewitness to the
occurrence. According to P.W.3, the two-wheeler was proceeding from
west to east, and the bus was proceeding from east to west in the opposite
direction, and the bus driver caused the accident by driving the bus in a
rash and negligent manner. An FIR was registered against the bus driver.
The final report was also filed against the bus driver.
10. Per contra, the appellant had examined R.W.1, the bus driver,
who had stated that the rider and the pillion rider of the two-wheeler did
not wear the helmet and both were in an inebriated condition and came in
the wrong side of the road and invited the accident by causing a head-on
collision with the bus and that there was a barricade kept on the side of
the road where the deceased was proceeding, and hence, the rider of the
two-wheeler, in order to avoid the barricade, came on the wrong side and
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD) Nos.1047 & 1048 of 2024
caused the accident. To corroborate the version of R.W.1, the appellant
had marked Exs.R1 and R2, the Chemical Analysis Reports, which
suggest that both the deceased had consumed alcohol. It is seen from the
Reports that the stomach of the rider contained 460 mg. of ethyl alcohol,
and the stomach of the pillion rider contained 184 mg. of ethyl alcohol.
The quantity of ethyl alcohol would show that the fact that both the
deceased were under the influence of alcohol cannot be ruled out.
11. Neither of the parties have produced evidence before the
Tribunal to ascertain as to which vehicle went on the wrong side. P.W.3,
in his cross-examination, had admitted that it was a head-on collision.
Considering the above facts, this Court is of the view that the rider of the
two-wheeler was under the influence of alcohol and also contributed to
the accident. Further, in the light of the evidence of R.W.1 and the
Postmortem Reports, which suggest that the deceased died due to the head
injuries, this Court is of the view that the deceased did not wear helmet at
the time of the accident.
12. Hence, considering the fact that there was a head-on collision
and the deceased died due to the head injuries and also the fact that the
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD) Nos.1047 & 1048 of 2024
rider of the two-wheeler was under the influence of alcohol at the time of
the accident, this Court is of the view that 40% contributory negligence
can be fixed on the rider of the two-wheeler. As regards the pillion rider,
it is seen from the records that he also did not wear the helmet and
sustained head injuries, and he was also under the influence of alcohol
and went along with the rider knowing that he was under the influence of
alcohol. Therefore, 20% contributory negligence can be fixed on the
pillion rider of the two-wheeler.
13. The learned counsel for the appellant was unable to point out
any infirmity in the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
Therefore, the award as regards the quantum of compensation is
confirmed.
C.M.A.(MD) No.1047 of 2024 [M.C.O.P.No.402 of 2020 - pillion
rider] : 20% contributory negligence
14. The compensation of Rs.19,27,400/- awarded by the Tribunal is
reduced to Rs.15,41,920/- [Rs.19,27,400 x 80/100].
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD) Nos.1047 & 1048 of 2024
15. The appellant, State Transport Corporation, shall deposit the
aforesaid amount of Rs.15,41,920/- together with interest at 7.5% per
annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of the realization
(except for the default period, if any) and costs, after deducting the
amount already deposited, if any, within a period of 4 weeks from the date
of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.
16. On such deposit, the respondents/claimants are permitted to
withdraw the same as per the apportionment fixed by the Tribunal along
with proportionate interest and costs, less the amount already withdrawn,
if any, by filing an application before the Tribunal.
17. The appellant, State Transport Corporation, is permitted to
withdraw the excess amount, if any, by filing an application before the
Tribunal.
C.M.A.(MD) No.1048 of 2024 [M.C.O.P.No.403 of 2020 - rider] :
40% contributory negligence
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD) Nos.1047 & 1048 of 2024
18. The compensation of Rs.19,27,400/- awarded by the Tribunal is
reduced to Rs.11,56,440/- [Rs.19,27,400 x 60/100].
19. The appellant, State Transport Corporation, shall deposit a sum
of Rs.11,56,440/- together with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date
of the claim petition till the date of the realization (except for the default
period, if any) and costs, after deducting the amount already deposited, if
any, within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
Judgment.
20. On such deposit, the respondents/claimants are permitted to
withdraw the same as per the apportionment fixed by the Tribunal along
with proportionate interest and costs, less the amount already withdrawn,
if any, by filing an application before the Tribunal.
21. The appellant, State Transport Corporation, is permitted to
withdraw the excess amount, if any, by filing an application before the
Tribunal.
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD) Nos.1047 & 1048 of 2024
22. In the result, both these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are partly
allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions
are closed.
11.09.2024
Index: Yes/ No
Neutral Citation: Yes / No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
JEN
Copy To:
1.The Special District Court,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Thanjavur, Thanjavur District.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras high Court, Madurai.
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD) Nos.1047 & 1048 of 2024
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
JEN
C.M.A.(MD) Nos.1047 & 1048 of 2024
and
C.M.P.(MD) Nos.10943 & 10945 of 2024
11.09.2024
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
