Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1238 (MAD)

Managing Director v. Rajinikanth

2014-06-10

S.MANIKUMAR

body2014
Judgment : 1. At the outset, Mr. D. Venkatachalam, learned counsel for the appellant Transport Corporation submitted that the finding of negligence fixed on the driver of the State Transport Corporation bus, bearing Registration No.TN-30N-0489, is the only challenge in this appeal. Inasmuch as the challenge is only restricted to negligence, this Court deems it fit to address as to whether the Claims Tribunal has properly appreciated the evidence adduced on either side. 2. According to the respondent/claimant, on 24.04.2012, about 07.15PM, near Manickam Sago Factory, on Sellappampatty-Puthanchanthai Service Road, when he was riding a yamaha bike, bearing Registration No.TN-28AH-2297, on the left side of the road, at a normal speed, a Transport Corporation bus, bearing Registration No.TN-30N-0489, which came in the opposite direction, driven in a rash and negligent manner, by its driver, dashed against the motor cyclist. He sustained compound fracture in the head, both legs, both hands and other injuries all over the body. Immediately, after the accident, he was admitted in MM Hospital, Namakkal. A case in Crime No.226 of 2012 under Section 279 of IPC has been registered against the driver of the State Transport Corporation, bearing Registration No.TN-30N-0489, on the file of Nallipalayam Police Station. 3. Per contra, the State Transport Corporation, in its counter affidavit, submitted that on 24.04.2012, about 05.15PM, when the vehicle was on its trip, from Karur to Salem, at 07.15PM, near Puthanchanthai, a Motor Cycle, bearing Registration No.TN-28AH-2297, was driven in a rash and negligent manner and though the driver has applied sudden brakes, honked the horn and attempted to stop the bus, the motor cycle hit on the right side of the bumper of the bus and thus, caused the accident. According to the Transport Corporation, the accident occurred only due to negligence of the motor cyclist. Objection to the claim has also been made, on the ground of non-joinder of the owner and the insurer of the motor cycle. 4. Before the Claims Tribunal, the respondent/injured examined himself as PW1 and reiterated the manner of accident. PW2 is the Doctor, who issued the Disability Certificate. Ex.P.1-First Information Report, Ex.P.2-Wound Certificate, Ex.P.3-Discharge Summary, Ex.P.4series-Medical Bills, Ex.P.5series-Prescriptions, Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.7-Scan Reports, Ex.P.8 and Ex.P.10-X-Rays, Ex.P.9-Registration Certificate of the Factory in which he was working and Ex.P.11-Disability Certificate, have been marked. RW1 is the driver of the State Transport Corporation bus. PW2 is the Doctor, who issued the Disability Certificate. Ex.P.1-First Information Report, Ex.P.2-Wound Certificate, Ex.P.3-Discharge Summary, Ex.P.4series-Medical Bills, Ex.P.5series-Prescriptions, Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.7-Scan Reports, Ex.P.8 and Ex.P.10-X-Rays, Ex.P.9-Registration Certificate of the Factory in which he was working and Ex.P.11-Disability Certificate, have been marked. RW1 is the driver of the State Transport Corporation bus. No document has been marked on the side of Transport Corporation. 5. Though RW1, driver of the State Transport Corporation bus, has reiterated the averments made in the counter affidavit, as regards the manner of accident, during cross examination, there is a clear admission on his part that based on Ex.P.1-First Information Report, a criminal case was registered and subsequently, he was arrested and released on bail. He has also admitted that the police, on investigation, laid a charge sheet against him. Though RW1 has deposed that after the accident, he had gone to the Police Station but, no complaint has been lodged. The oral testimony of PW1 is duly corroborated by Ex.P.1-First Information Report. Further, RW1 himself has admitted that a charge sheet has been filed against him. Testing the finding of negligence fixed on RW1, driver of the Transport Corporation bus, on the principles of preponderance of probability, this Court is of the view that there is no perversity in the finding. Hence, the finding of the Claims Tribunal cannot be said to be perverse or it is a case of no evidence, warranting interference. 6. For the reasons stated supra, the finding of the Claims Tribunal is confirmed. In the light of the restricted submission stated supra, there is no need to advertto the aspect of quantum of compensation, which is also not urged by the Transport Corporation. Hence, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Consequent to the dismissal of this appeal, the appellant – Transport Corporation, is directed to deposit the award amount, with proportionate accrued interest and costs, less the statutory deposit, to the credit of MCOP No.86 of 2012 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Namakkal, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not deposited earlier. On such deposit, the respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount by making necessary applications.