Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2828 (MAD)

Manimegalai v. Vinayakumar

2022-08-18

J.NISHA BANU

body2022
JUDGMENT (Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, against the Award dated 26.06.2007 made in M.C.O.P.No.368 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhavani (Sub Court, Bhavani).) 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the unsuccessful claimants whose MCOP.No.368 of 2005 filed seeking compensation of Rs.4,40,000/- has been rejected by the Tribunal. 2. As per the claim petition averments, on 01.12.2003 at about 9.30 a.m., Gandhi who driven TVS 50 vehicle with 1st claimant as pillion rider, travelled on National HIghways Road, Karuthampatti. At that time, the bus belonging to 2nd respondent bearing Reg.No.33-1506 came on the same direction which was driven in a rash and negligent manner and hit on the rear side of the two wheeler. In the resultant accident, both Gandhi and the 1st claimant sustained injuries. Gandhi has been admitted in CMC Hospital, Coimbatore and then he was taking treatment in the Government Hospital, Mettur. Since his condition worsened, he died on 10.04.2004. Therefore, the claimants claimed Rs.4,40,000/- as compensation. 3. The 2nd respondent transport corporation filed counter before the tribunal and resisted the claim. One among the contentions raised by the transport corporation is that due to various diseases, the said person died and in such circumstances, fixing negligence on the driver of the bus may not be correct. 4. The tribunal on going through the evidence and pleadings, framed two questions for consideration (1) Whether the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 1st respondent/driver of the bus and (2) Whether the claimants are entitled to the relief of compensation, if so, what is the quantum of compensation ? 5. The evidence of P.W.1 is that only due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent driver of the bus, the accident occurred on 01.12.2003 and her husband who met with serious injuries has not been recovered even after continuous treatment and he died on 10.04.2004. It is further deposed by P.W.1 that her husband was aged 42 years at the time of accident and he was hale and healthy and only due to accident, her husband died. 6. In the cross examination of P.W.1, it is agreed by her that the two wheeler involved in the accident has been purchased by them just one month before the accident and the said vehicle had no registration number. 6. In the cross examination of P.W.1, it is agreed by her that the two wheeler involved in the accident has been purchased by them just one month before the accident and the said vehicle had no registration number. Further, there was no insurance coverage for the two wheeler. It has been further accepted by P.W.1 that for the injuries sustained and the treatment taken, she has not produced any documentary evidence. But P.W.1 stated that only due to negligent driving of the driver of the transport corporation bus, the accident occurred. However, she also accepted that her husband died only after four months of the accident and in the mean time, he was taking treatment only as out patient in the Mettur Government Hospital. It has also been negatived by P.W.1 that her husband was suffering from diabetes and so he was taking treatment as outpatient in the Government Hospital, Mettur. 7. The tribunal discussed about the contents of Ex.P.-1 Complaint, wherein the first claimant given the complaint and stated that since her husband was not well, they gone to hospital and on the way, the accident occurred. Further, regarding injuries, the tribunal found that the deceased sustained only simple injuries but the death occurred after four months of the accident. 8. The Tribunal also analysed Ex.P.3 Motor vehicle inspector’s report and held that the two wheeler driven by the deceased does not have registration number, no insurance coverage and the licence of the driver also not produced. Per contra, the Motor Vehicle inspector’s report regarding the transport corporation bus showed that there was no damage to the bus. 9. The tribunal also clearly given its finding that Ex.P.2 would show that there was no head injuries suffered by the deceased, but on the contrary, based on Ex.P.2, Ex.P.8 given wherein it has been stated that the deceased died due to head injuries. Furthermore, in the complaint itself , it has been stated by the 1st claimant, that her husband’s health condition was not well. The tribunal, hence, concluded that since the death occurred only after four months of the accident, it cannot be said that he died only due to the accident. 10. The tribunal further pointed out that only one month before the accident, the deceased purchased the new two wheeler, but no registration obtained and there was no valid insurance coverage. The tribunal, hence, concluded that since the death occurred only after four months of the accident, it cannot be said that he died only due to the accident. 10. The tribunal further pointed out that only one month before the accident, the deceased purchased the new two wheeler, but no registration obtained and there was no valid insurance coverage. Even though it is the allegation of the claimants that the 2nd respondent corporation bus hit the two wheeler from behind, it cannot be concluded that the deceased driven the vehicle by following the Motor Vehicle Rules as he was not possessing driving licence to drive the vehicle, as such, due to the negligence of the deceased, the accident taken place. 11. It is deposed by R.W.1, driver of the bus that only due to negligence of the deceased. His furthe testimony is that the deceased health condition was not good, so he did not go to job. By taking note of the evidence both oral and documentary, it has been held by the Tribunal, that only due to negligence of the deceased, the accident happened and the 1st respondent is not liable for the cause of accident. So the tribunal answered the first issue against the claimant. 12. Insofar as the second issue, the tribunal noted that FIR has been filed only after 12 hours of the accident and that even though Ex.P.8 show that the deceased died due to injuries, there is no documents produced by the claimants to show that the deceased underwent continuous treatment for the accidental injuries and no medical bills produced to sustain their contention. Holding so, the Tribunal rejected the claim of compensation. 13. The tribunal, after an elaborate discussion, given findings that in support of the claim, no evidence was given and the Tribunal drew the conclusion that the claimants are not entitled to the relief sought for, which finding of the Tribunal, does not require any interference by this court. This court see no merit in the appeal. Accordingly, this civil miscellaneous appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.