Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 1742
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN
P.S. Ramamurthy
Versus
The Managing Director Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd.,
C.M.A.No.3526 of 2004
Decided On : 15-04-2010
For the Petitioner:U.M. Ravichandran, Advocate.
For the Respondent:A. Babu, Advocate.
The main legal point established is the requirement for claimants to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and the relevance of primary documents in determining entitlement to compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Headnote:
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Compensation - Sections 166, 140 and 142(B) of the Motor Vehicles Act - Summary: The claimant filed for compensation under Sections 166, 140 and 142(B) of the Motor Vehicles Act due to injuries sustained in a road accident. The court found discrepancies in the evidence presented and dismissed the claim. The appellant appealed, citing relevant case law, and the court awarded compensation based on primary documents and the nature of the injuries.
Fact of the Case:
The claimant sought compensation for injuries sustained in a road accident under Sections 166, 140 and 142(B) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim due to discrepancies in the evidence presented.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the claimant's evidence was not sufficient to prove the occurrence of the accident and the injuries sustained. The appellant appealed, citing relevant case law, and the court awarded compensation based on primary documents and the nature of the injuries.
Issues: The issues revolved around the occurrence of the accident, the injuries sustained, and the entitlement to compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principle of burden of proof and the standard of proof required in claim petitions under the Motor Vehicles Act. It considered the evidence presented and the relevance of primary documents in determining the entitlement to compensation.
Final Decision: The court modified the previous decision, awarded compensation of Rs.96,352 with accrued interest, and directed the respondent to deposit the amount into the credit of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
1. The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/petitioner against the Award and Decree, dated 31.12.2003, made in M.C.O.P.No.1208 of 2000, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Small Causes Court No.V, Chennai, dismissing the claim of Rs.3,50,000/- made by him.
2. Aggrieved by the said Award and Decree, the appellant/petitioner, P.S. Ramamurthy, has filed the above appeal praying to set aside the award and decree passed by the Tribunal and allow the claim of Rs.3,50,000/- made by him.
3. The short facts of the case are as follows:
On 06.11.1999, at about 22.00 hours, while the petitioner aged 39 years, was riding the TVS Scooty bearing registration No.TN09 J2298 from south to north at Anna Salai along with his friend one Sridhar as pillion rider and when he was opposite to Metha Complex at Chinnamalai and waiting for taking U turn at the proper place, the MTC bus bearing registration No.TN01 N1976, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and endangering public safety, came at a high speed, and in the same direction and hit the TVS Scooty from behind and thus caused grievous injuries to him. After dashing against the TVS Scooty, the bus sped away from the spot.
4. As the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent manner of driving by the driver of the bus, the respondent, the owner of the bus, is vicariously liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has claimed a compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- from the respondent, with interest and costs, under Sections 166, 140 and 142(B) of the Motor Vehicles Act.
5. Regarding the said accident, the Traffic Investigation Department, J3, Guindy Police Station has registered a case in Crime No.672/S3/99.
6. The respondent, the Managing Director, Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd., in his counter statement has resisted he claim stating that the bus bearing registration No.TN01 N1976 was not involved in any accident as alleged by the petitioner. It was also submitted that the petitioner had stated in his claim that the respondents bus came behind his motorcycle and hit the vehicle and he sustained grievous injuries, whereas in the FIR lodged with the Police, he has stated that there was no damages to the motorcycle and also to the pillion rider. As such, the respondent has submitted that there is inconsistency in the version regarding the manner of the accident and hence it has been submitted that there was no accident involving the respondents bus. The respondent has also denied the averments in the claim regarding the age, income and occupation of the petitioner, nature of injuries, period of treatment, disability sustained and has stated that all these should be proved through documentary evidence. It has also been submitted that the claim is excessive and arbitrary and has to be dismissed with costs.
7. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed two issues for the consideration namely:
(i) Who is responsible for the accident?
(ii)Whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation, which he is entitled to get?
8. On the petitioners side three witnesses were examined as PW1, PW2 and PW3 and sixteen documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P16.On the respondents side three witness was examined as RW1 to RW3 and one document was marked as Ex.R1.
9. On the petitioners side, it was argued that when the petitioner had stopped his vehicle at a U turn and had switched on his indicator light to show that he is going to take U turn, the respondents bus had dashed the petitioners bike from behind. On the respondents side, it was argued that the respondents bus was not involved in the alleged accident and that the petitioner himself fell down from his vehicle and sustained injuries. In column No.23 of the petition, it has been stated that the respondents bus had come at a high speed and dashed against the rear of the TVS Scooty and that the petitioner had sus
