Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 833 (MAD)

The Managing Director v. Nachimuthu & Others

2009-03-26

A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN

body2009
Judgment These revision petitions have been directed against the award in M.C.O.P.No.849 of 2000 and M.C.O.P.No.848 of 2000 respectively on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal. The revision petitioner is the first respondent, the Managing Director,ATC now known as TNSTC, Salem. 2. The grievance of the revision petitioner is that the Tribunal has fastened the liability on the driver of vehicle belonging to the first respondent viz., Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Salem and also on the driver, who is the second respondent in M.C.O.P.No.849 of 2000 and M.C.O.P.No.848 of 2000 respectively who is the owner of the lorry which involved in the accident. 3. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the learned Tribunal, after passing an award for Rs.10,000/-in both M.C.O.Ps, has fastened the liability on the first respondent ie., directing the first respondent to pay 50% of the award amount which according to the revision petitioner is not sustainable. But on a perusal of the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.849 of 2000 and M.C.O.P.No.848 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal will go to show that the liability part was discussed by the learned Tribunal at paragraph 7 and has given a definite finding as to the effect that as per the rough sketch which was marked as Ex P4, both the drivers of the vehicle involved in the accident were driven the respective vehicle in a rash and negligent manner which forms as "Res ipso Loquitor" and the Tribunal has come to a conclusion that on the basis of Ex P4 rough sketch both the drivers in the vehicles which involved in the accident are negligent and liable and accordingly directed that both the first respondent in M.C.O.P.No.849 of 2000 and M.C.O.P.NO.848 of 2000 and also the third respondent being the Insurance Company for the vehicle owned by the second respondent are jointly or severally liable for the award amount. There is no material placed before this Court to show that the driver of the vehicle belonging to the second respondent in M.C.O.P.No.849 of 2000 and M.C.O.P.No.848 of 2000 alone was responsible for the accident. Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the learned Tribunal in M.C.O.P.NO.849 of 2000 and M.C.O.P.No.848 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal. Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the learned Tribunal in M.C.O.P.NO.849 of 2000 and M.C.O.P.No.848 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal. 4. In fine, these civil revision petitions are dismissed. It is represented by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner that the revision petitioner had already deposited 50% of the award amount to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.849 of 2000 and M.C.O.P.No.848 of 2000 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal. The award was passed in the year 2005 and already three years lapsed. Under such circumstances, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire award amount in deposit to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.849 of 2000 and M.C.O.P.No.848 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal without furnishing any security. No costs. Connected M.P.Nos.1 + 1 of 2008 are also dismissed.