Back
2008 Supreme(Mad) 676
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI
The Managing Director, Metropolitan Transport Corporation Limited, Pallavan House, Chennai
Versus
Panneerselvam
C.M.A.No.2449 of 2002
Decided on : 26-02-2008
For the Appellant :A. Babu for S. Ramachandran, Advocates.
For the Respondent:M. Sathyanarayanan, Advocate.
The burden of proof lies upon the defense to substantiate the plea of contributory negligence, and acquittal of a criminal case cannot be a ground for accepting the plea of contributory negligence.
Headnote:
Contributory Negligence - Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - M.V. Act, Section 166 - Negligent driving, contributory negligence - Acquittal of Criminal case - Burden of proof - Quantum of compensation
Fact of the Case:
The Respondent-Claimant sustained injuries in a road traffic accident and filed a petition claiming compensation. The Metropolitan Transport Corporation (MTC) opposed the claim, alleging contributory negligence on the part of the Claimant. The Tribunal held the MTC liable and awarded compensation of Rs.38,400/-, which the MTC appealed against.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the MTC failed to substantiate the plea of contributory negligence and that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was just and reasonable. The appeal was dismissed, confirming the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
Issues: Contributory negligence, negligent driving, quantum of compensation
Ratio Decidendi: The burden of proof lies upon the defense to substantiate the plea of contributory negligence. Acquittal of a criminal case cannot be a ground for accepting the plea of contributory negligence. The Tribunal rightly negatived the plea of contributory negligence put forth by the Appellant-Corporation. The quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was considered just and reasonable.
Final Decision: The quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was confirmed, and the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Being aggrieved over the award of compensation of Rs.38,400/- for the personal injuries sustained by the Respondent-Claimant in the road traffic accident on 12.08.1997, Metropolitan Transport Corporation (MTC) has preferred this Appeal.
2.Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this Appeal are as follows:-
On 12.08.1997 – 5.30 hours the Claimant was traveling in the bi-cycle from South to North and while proceeding at Konnur and Medavakkam High Road junction, MTC bus bearing registration No.TN-01-N 1689 coming from North to South dashed against the Claimant. Due to the accident the Claimant sustained fracture injury in his left hip and head. After the accident, the Claimant had taken treatment in Kilpauk Medical College Hospital, Chennai as in-patient. Alleging that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver, the Claimant has filed Petition U/s.166 of M.V.Act claiming compensation of Rs.75,000/-.
3. Opposing the claim, MTC has filed counter denying the negligent driving. According to MTC, the Claimant was coming from South to North without observing the traffic rules and dashed against the left front of the bus and fell down and sustained injuries. Since the accident was due to the negligence and carelessness of the Claimant, MTC is not liable to pay the compensation. MTC has also disputed the age, income of the Claimant and also nature of injuries and treatment taken by him and percentage of disability.
4. Before the Tribunal, the Claimant examined himself as P.W.1. Eye witness was examined as P.W.2. Dr. Thiagarajan was examined as P.W.3. Exs.P.1 to P.7 were marked. The driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1. MTC has mainly relied upon the acquittal of the Criminal Case against R.W.1. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, Tribunal held that the accident was due to negligent driving of the bus driver and held that MTC is liable to pay the compensation. The Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.38,400/- i.e. Loss of earning Rs.10,000/-; Extra nourishment Rs.200/-; Damage to cycle Rs.200/-; Pain and suffering Rs.3,000/- and Permanent Disability Rs.25,000/-.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-Corporation has submitted that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence given by the driver and that the Criminal case is ended in acquittal. It was further submitted that the Respondent-Claimant was guilty of contributory negligence and the same was not properly appreciated by the Tribunal. The quantum of compensation is also objected to.
6. Supporting the finding of the Tribunal, the learned counsel Mr.M.Sathianarayanan, appearing for the Respondent-Claimant has submitted that based on the evidence, the Tribunal has held that the accident was due to the negligent driving of the bus driver. It was further submitted that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and the same cannot be interfered with.
7. On the date of accident, the bus bearing registration No.TN-01 N 1689 was proceeding from Ayyanavaram Depot to I.C.F. and the bus turned from Anderson road and was proceeding in Kunnur High Road. According to the Appellant-Corporation, the Claimant who was proceeding in the bi-cycle dashed against the left front side of the bus and fell down and that the Claimant was guilty of contributory negligence. MTC has mainly relied upon the evidence of R.W.1 and acquittal of Criminal case against R.W.1.
8. It is fairly well settled that whenever the plea of contributory negligence is taken, the burden lies upon the defence to substantiate the plea of contributory negligence. Apart from the interested testimony of the evidence of R.W.1, the Appellant-Corporation has not adduced any evidence to show that the Claimant was guilty of contributory negligence. MTC has not chosen to produce the plan regarding scene of accident and Motor Vehicle Inspectors report of the vehicle. The Appellant-Corporation has not substantiated th
