Back
2023 Supreme(Mad) 1757
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R. VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
The Branch Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Pudukkottai – Appellant
Versus
Rani & Another – Respondents
C.M.A (MD) Nos. 965 to 973 of 2018 & CMA (MD). N0s. 1322 & 1323 of 2016 & CRP(MD). No. 2752 of 2018 & CMP(MD). Nos. 11226 & 11227 of 2016 & 12038 of 2018
Decided On : 04-05-2023
For the Appellant:D. Sivaraman, Advocate. For the Respondent:R1, No appearance, R2, M. Suresh, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of negligence in a motor accident case, based on the actions and testimonies of the drivers and witnesses involved.
Headnote:
Negligence - Motor Accident Claims - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 173 - R1, R3, R4, R5 - The court discussed the negligence of the transport corporation bus driver and the tractor driver, and the impact of their actions on the accident. The court found that the accident happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the transport corporation bus driver. The court also considered the damages to the vehicles and the testimonies of the drivers and witnesses.
Fact of the Case:
The appeals were filed by the State Transport Corporation and the owner of the Tractor challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in 11 claim petitions primarily on the ground of negligence. The accident occurred when a transport corporation bus collided with a tractor-trailer, resulting in injuries to the passengers.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accident happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the transport corporation bus driver. The court dismissed the appeals filed by the transport corporation and allowed the Civil Revision Petition filed by the owner of the tractor.
Issues: The main issue was to determine whose negligence caused the accident - the transport corporation bus driver or the tractor driver.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the testimonies of the drivers and witnesses, the damages to the vehicles, and the circumstances of the accident to determine the negligence of the parties involved.
Final Decision: The court dismissed all the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals and allowed the Civil Revision Petition. No costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer in CMA(MD).No.965 of 2018:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the judgement and decree passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Pudukkottai in MCOP.No.118 of 2013 dated 10.02.2015.)
Common Judgment:
1. The Civil Miscellaneous appeals have been filed by the State Transport Corporation challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in 11 claim petitions primarily on the ground of negligence.
2. C.R.P.(MD).No.2752 of 2018 has been filed by the owner of the Tractor challenging the award passed in favour of the Transport Corporation claiming damages for repairing the transport corporation bus due to the accident caused by the tractor owner.
3. The claimants who were the respondents in the appeals have travelled as passengers in the transport corporation bus on 01.03.2013. When the bus was crossing the Indira Nagar and it was near the Ilango Kalyana Mandapam, a tractor-trailer owned by the second respondent carrying haystack was coming in the opposite direction. The driver of the transport corporation bus drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the tractor. Due to the said accident, the bus capsized into a nearby pond and all the passengers got injured. This accident had happened only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the transport corporation. However, due to the pressure of transport corporation, an F.I.R was registered as against the tractor driver in Crime No.163 of 2013. The claimants have claimed various amount towards compensation for the injuries sustained by them in the accident.
4. The tractor owner had filed a counter contenting that the tractor was carrying haystack and it was driven in a moderate speed. Only the transport corporation bus was driven in a rash and negligent manner and it dashed against the front left wheel of the tractor due to which the wheel got detached. As a consequence, the bus driver applied sudden break and the bus got capsized into the pond on the left side. Since the bus had got capsized into the pond, the complaint lodged by the tractor owner was not registered by the police officials. Therefore, the accident had happened only due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the bus driver.
5. The transport corporation had filed a counter contending that only the tractor was driven in a rash and negligent manner and it dashed against the right side of the bus. Therefore, when the negligence is solely upon the tractor driver, the transport corporation is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants.
6. The Tribunal after considering the evidence of the driver of the bus who was examined as RW1, the driver of the tractor who was examined as RW2 and an eye witness who was examined as RW3 and based upon Exhibits R1 to R5, arrived at a conclusion that the accident had happened only due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the transport corporation bus driver.
7. The Tribunal had proceeded to award a sum of Rs.15,000/- to each one of the injured claimants in all the claim petitions. These awards are under challenge in the present appeals,
8. According to the learned counsel for the appellant/transport corporation, the bus was driven in a moderate speed and only the tractor driver had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the front right side of the bus. Due to the impact, the bus had capsized into a pond nearby. The learned counsel for the appellant had relied upon Exhibit R3-rough sketch prepared by the police officials to indicate that the accident has happened only on the left corner of the road and therefore, no presumption can be drawn that the accident has happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. According to him, only the tractor had dashed against the bus making the bus to capsize. In view of the fact that the tractor driver was not having a driv
