Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 452 (MAD)

The Managing Director v. T. P. M. Sughirtharaj

2010-02-02

C.S.KARNAN

body2010
Judgment : The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/respondent, the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Villupuram, against the Award and Decree, dated 04.12.2007, made in M.C.O.P.No.95 of 2003, on the file of the Additional District Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Tract Court No.I, Salem, awarding a compensation of Rs.94,791/-, together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation. 2. Aggrieved by the said Award and Decree, the appellant/respondent, the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Villupuram, has filed the above appeal praying to set aside the award and decree passed by the Tribunal. 3. The short facts of the case are as follows: At about 11.45 a.m. on 28.03.2002, when the petitioner was riding his Bajaj Chetak Scooter bearing registration No.TN27 A7895 and proceeding towards State Bank in Salem Town and when he had crossed Vincent bus stop, and travelling on the extreme left side of the road, the respondents bus bearing registration No.TN32 N1367, driven at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, came from behind and dashed against the said Scooter of the petitioner and caused the accident. As a result of the accident, the petitioner sustained multiple fracture on his right hand and he was immediately taken to Kiruba Hospital, Salem-7, where he was treated as inpatient from 28.03.2002 to 03.04.2002. After the accident, the petitioner is not able to write as usual and experiences pain on the right hand shoulder. The petitioner has claimed a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- from the respondent under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 4. Regarding the said accident, the Traffic Investigation Wing, Salem City registered a case in Crime No.196/2002, against the driver of the bus bearing registration No.TN32 N3267, under Sections 279 and 332 of I.P.C and the case is pending investigation. 5. The respondent, in his counter, has resisted the claim stating that the driver of the respondents bus drove the vehicle with due care and caution and observed all the traffic rules and was not rash and negligent as alleged in the petition. 5. The respondent, in his counter, has resisted the claim stating that the driver of the respondents bus drove the vehicle with due care and caution and observed all the traffic rules and was not rash and negligent as alleged in the petition. It has been stated that on 28.03.2002, the respondents bus bearing registration No.TN32 N1367 was on its trip from Salem to Tiruvannamalai and that at 11.28 a.m. when the bus was nearing Vincent bus stop, a large crowd, which had assembled for temple festival, crossed the bus; that on seeing the crowed, the petitioner, who came in the scooter bearing registration No.TN27 A7895 lost his balance and hit himself in the backside of the bus; that the respondents bus driver was not responsible for the accident; that the accident had occurred only due to the careless and negligent act of the driver. 6. The respondent has further stated that the Criminal Court, after trial, held that the charges framed against the respondents driver was not proved and had acquitted the respondents driver. Further, the age, occupation, monthly income, the nature of alleged injuries sustained by the petitioner, the period of treatment, medical expenses and percentage of disability suffered by the petitioner has to be proved by the petitioner by documentary evidence. 7. It has been submitted that the claim is excessive and disproportionate to the loss caused due to the accident and injuries and as such the respondent has prayed for dismissal of the petition with costs. 8. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed three issues for the consideration namely: (i)Who is responsible for the accident? (ii)Is the petitioner entitled to get compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation, which he is entitled to get? (iii)To what other relief? 9. On the petitioners side, the petitioner was examined as PW1 and the Doctor, who had issued the Disability Certificate to the petitioner, was examined as PW2 and 23 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P23. On the respondents side, the driver of the bus was examined as RW1, but no documents were marked. 10. (iii)To what other relief? 9. On the petitioners side, the petitioner was examined as PW1 and the Doctor, who had issued the Disability Certificate to the petitioner, was examined as PW2 and 23 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P23. On the respondents side, the driver of the bus was examined as RW1, but no documents were marked. 10. The PW1 in his evidence had deposed that on 28.03.2002, at 11.45 a.m. when he was travelling in his Bajaj Chetak Scooter bearing registration No.TN27 A7895 and was proceeding towards State Bank, Salem and when he had passed the Vincent bus stand and travelling on the extreme left of the road, the respondents bus bearing registration No.TN32 N1367, driven by its driver without sounding of horn, came from behind and had dashed against his vehicle; that as a result of this impact, he had been thrown out of his scooter had fallen down; that he had sustained injuries in the fingers of his right hand and his bone in the right fore arm joint has been fractured. He had deposed that due to the accident, his scooter was also damaged and that he had sold the said scooter. He was admitted in Kiruba Hospital, Salem, initially. 11. Regarding the accident, a criminal case was filed by the Traffic Investigation Wing of Salem Police, after investigation, against the driver of the said bus and a Charge Sheet was filed with the Judicial Magistrate Court No.III and an enquiry was conducted. 12. To refute the allegations of the petitioner, the driver of the said bus was examined as RW1, on the respondents side. The RW1 has deposed that on 28.03.2002, at about 11.20 a.m. he had started to drive the respondents bus from the new bus stand, Salem towards Tirukovilur and that when the bus was nearing Vincent bus stand next to Hasthampet, he had seen a large crowd gathered there to attend the temple festival and so he was driving the bus slowly; that at that time, the petitioner, who was riding his Scooter had tried to overtake the bus on the left side and due to the milling crowed, the scooterist had lost his balance, due to his negligence and was unable to control his scooter and so had fallen down on the left side of the bus. The RW1 had further deposed that on hearing the thind of the Scooter falling down, he had stopped the bus. The Police, who were patrolling that area had asked him to drive the bus to the Police Station, as the scooterist had complained to them that he had fallen down only because the bus had dashed against him. Further, he deposed that a case was filed against him by the Alagapuram Police. He had stated that the accident was not caused due to any negligence or rash driving on his part and that it has been caused only because of the negligent and rash driving of the petitioner. The scooterist had not fallen down due to any collision with the bus, but that he had fallen down due to his own fault and negligence and as such the petitioner, in order to claim undue compensation, had filed the claim petition and as such the respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner and hence the claim petition has got to be dismissed.