Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2626 (MAD)

R. Vivegananthan v. NNL Bus Service

2018-08-24

V.M.VELUMANI

body2018
JUDGMENT : Being aggrieved against the dismissal order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Subordinate and Assistant Sessions Court, Devakottai, in M.C.O.P.No.87 of 2006, the appellant-claimant has filed the present appeal. 2. The appellant is the claimant. He has filed the said claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.87 of 2006 claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that occurred on 23.05.2005. 3. Facts of the case :- According to the appellant, while he was riding the motorbike with his wife to the hospital, the bus belonging to the first respondent driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him. Due to that, he and his wife sustained injuries. The accident was occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by driver of the bus belonging to the first respondent insured with the second respondent. The appellant sustained grievous injuries all over his body. He took treatment at Government Hospital, Karaikudi and thereafter, Meenakshi Mission Hospital, Madurai. He claimed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) as compensation. The first respondent is the owner of the bus insured with the second respondent. Hence, both are liable to pay compensation. 4. The first respondent remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. 5. The second respondent filed counter statement denied various averments made by the appellant. According to the second respondent, the accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving by driver of the bus. The appellant suddenly crossed the road and due to the same, the accident occurred. The appellant sustained only minor injuries and in any event, the compensation claimed is excessive. 6. Before the Tribunal, the appellant examined himself as P.W.1, Dr.Selvamuthukumaran was examined as P.W.2 and Dr. Maheskumar was examined as P.W.3 and marked 26 documents as Ex.A1 to Ex.A26. The respondents did not let in any oral and documentary evidence. 7. The Tribunal considering the First Information Report and Rough sketch dismissed the claim petition holding that the accident occurred in the centre of the road due to the rash and negligent riding by the appellant. 8. Against the said order, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petition in view of the minor discrepancy in the evidence of the appellant as P.W.1. 8. Against the said order, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petition in view of the minor discrepancy in the evidence of the appellant as P.W.1. The appellant has deposed as to how the accident occurred and marked documents to substantiate his claim that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by driver of the bus. The learned counsel for the appellant also made a submission with regard to injuries and quantum of compensation. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent contended that the appellant suddenly crossed the road and due to the same, the accident occurred. The driver of the bus was driven the bus at moderate speed and due to rash and negligent riding by appellant, the accident occurred. The Tribunal has considered the First Information Report and rough sketch and evidence of appellant properly and dismissed the claim petition by giving cogent and valid reason. 11. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the second respondent and also perused all the materials available on record. 12. From the materials on record, it is seen that the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the accident occurred in the centre of the road as per the rough sketch, driver of the bus applied the brake and the bus was stopped after 3 feet. The next ground for dismissal of claim petition by the Tribunal is that the discrepancies in the First Information Report, claim petition and evidence of P.W.1. Findings of the Tribunal are contrary to the facts. From the order of the Tribunal, it is seen that from the rough sketch, the accident had occurred in the centre of the road. The Tribunal failed to take into consideration the evidence of P.W.1 that the accident occurred when he stopped the two-wheeler. This shows that the driver of the bus came and dashed against the two-wheeler of the appellant, when he stopped the two-wheeler on seeing the bus being driven in a rash and negligent manner. 13. The reasoning of the Tribunal that the driver of the bus applied brake and stopped the bus and only then the appellant dashed against the bus and got injury, is not based on any evidence. 13. The reasoning of the Tribunal that the driver of the bus applied brake and stopped the bus and only then the appellant dashed against the bus and got injury, is not based on any evidence. The respondents have not examined the driver of the bus or any evidence contrary to the evidence of P.W.1 or statement in the FIR. The Tribunal has also failed to consider the fact that the accident occurred in the main road and heavy vehicles were involved in the accident. 14. For the above reasons, I hold that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving by driver of the bus belonging to the first respondent. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition without considering the quantum of compensation claimed by the appellant, as according to the Tribunal, the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent riding of the appellant. In such circumstances, the order of the Tribunal is set aside and the claim petition is remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration with regard to fixing the quantum of compensation payable to the appellant for the injuries sustained by him. The Tribunal is directed to consider the claim petition only with regard to compensation payable to the appellant, based on the oral and documentary evidence already let in by the appellant. As the claim petition is of the year 2006, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Subordinate and Assistant Sessions Judge, Devakottai, is directed to dispose the claim petition within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 15. With the above directions, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No costs.