The court confirmed the liability of the Transport Corporation for a road accident based on the FIR, charge sheet, and the absence of an appeal against a connected case. The court also upheld the awarded compensation as reasonable.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the order passed in M.C.O.P.No.364 of 2015, dated 29.11.2019, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / Special Sub Court, Tiruchirappalli.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the award, passed in M.C.O.P.No.364 of 2015, dated 29.11.2019, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / Special Sub Court, Tiruchirappalli. The appellant herein is the respondent and the respondent herein is the claimant in the original M.C.O.P. Petition.

2. Brief substance of the claim petition, in M.C.O.P.No.364 of 2015, is as follows:

On 29.06.2014, at about 10.30 pm., when the petitioner was traveling in her Scooter bearing Registration No.TN-81-Z-2355, with his daughter, viz., Cherin Jenifer Harvi, as a pillion rider along the Pudukkottai – Trichy High Ways road, near MRT Steel company, a bus bearing Registration No.TN-55-N-0605 was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the two wheeler and the petitioner sustained injuries. He sustained fracture in the hip and he took first aid in Trichy Government Hospital and then he was admitted as inpatient from 30.06.2014 till 11.07.2014. The petitioner claimed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation.

3. Brief substance of the counter filed by the respondent, in M.C.O.P.No. 364 of 2015, is as follows:

The manner of accident as narrated in the petition is wrong. The bus was driven by its driver in a slow and cautious manner. It was the rider of the two wheeler, who came from a lane, without any signal suddenly turned to the right side and come to the middle of the road. The respondent's driver applied the brake, but, it was the rider of the two wheeler, who lost his control and dashed against the bus on the right centre portion. The respondent is not liable to pay compensation. The age, income, avocation, nature of injuries, mode of treatment, medical expenses are all denied.

4. Another case in M.C.O.P.No.377 of 2015 was filed by a person, who sustained injury in the same accident, before the Tribunal. In both the claim petitions, in M.C.O.P.Nos.377 of 2015 and 364 of 2015, a joint trial was conducted and a common judgment was pronounced by the Tribunal.

5. On the side of the claimant, 2 witnesses were examined and 23 documents were marked. On the side of the respondent, 1 witness was examined and no document was marked. 2 Documents were marked as Ex.X1 and X2. After considering both sides, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,77,000/- to be paid by the Transport Corporation.

6. Against the order, the appellant / Transport Corporation has filed this appeal.

7. On the side of the appellant / Corporation, it is stated that the respondent suppressed the true facts. It was the respondent, who invited the accident due to his own negligence. It was the respondent, who try to cross the road, came along the right side of the road. Only on humanitarian ground, the Tribunal has mechanically awarded the compensation.

8. On the side of the respondent / claimant, it is stated that the FIR and charge sheet were against the bus driver. No document was filed on the side of the respondent. The respondent failed to prove that the accident took place due to the negligent driving of the two wheeler.

9. A perusal of the records reveals that a joint trial was conducted and a common judgment was pronounced in 2 cases (M.C.O.P.No.364 of 2015 and 377 of 2015), only one appeal was filed by the Transport Corporation against the award in M.C.O.P.No.364 of 2015. The Transport Corporation failed to file an appeal against M.C.O.P.No.377 of 2015, questioning the liability. Only when the Corporation questioned the liability in the connected case, the Corporation can question the liability in the present case. On the basis of the FIR and charge sheet and as there is no appeal against M.C.O.P.No.377 of 2015, the liability of the appellant is confirmed.

10. No dispute