Back
2024 Supreme(Mad) 2004
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R.Kalaimathi, J.
The Managing Director, The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation(MAD-DIV-I)Ltd, Madurai - Appellant
Vs.
Packiammal - Respondent
C.M.A(MD)No.1283 of 2024 and C.M.P(MD)No.13707 of 2024
Decided On : 15-11-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.K.Sudalaiyandi
For the Respondents: Mr.S.Sarvagan Prabhu
The court affirmed the liability of the transport corporation for the accident due to the driver's negligent conduct, upholding the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Negligence - The appeal concerns the liability of the Transport Corporation for the death of Ramachandran due to a bus accident. The Tribunal found the driver negligent, awarding Rs.6,74,800/- in compensation. (Paras 7, 10)
(B) Liability - The court upheld the Tribunal's finding that the accident was caused by the rash driving of the bus driver, rejecting the defense that the deceased was at fault. (Paras 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
The deceased was struck by a bus while standing near a tea stall, resulting in fatal injuries. The claimants are the legal heirs of the deceased.
Findings of Court:
The court confirmed the Tribunal's award of compensation, attributing liability to the bus driver for negligent driving.
Issues: The main issue was whether the bus driver was negligent or if the deceased was at fault.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the evidence supported the conclusion that the bus driver was negligent, affirming the Tribunal's decision.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred by the Managing Director of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Madurai against the order, dated 28.02.2019, passed in M.C.O.P.No.315 of 2008, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Principal District Judge, Dindigul.
2. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is focussed on the question of negligence.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and respondents.
4. Case set out in the claim petition is given herein in brief:
On 12.12.2007, at 9.30 a.m., while the deceased Ramachandran was standing opposite to Tea stall near railway gate at Dharapuram Main Road, Palani, at that point of time, a bus bearing Registration No. TN 58 N 0202 came from north to south in a rash and negligent manner, dashed on the said Ramachandran and due to the said impact, he sustained head injury. On the way to hospital, he lost his breath. The accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the respondent/bus. As the bus is owned by the respondent-Corporation, the respondent-Corporation is liable to pay compensation to the claimants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased Ramachandran.
5. Details of counter of the respondent/Corporation is given in brief:
On 12.12.2007, at about 9.30 am., the driver of the bus took a trip from Palani and while he was proceeding towards Kallimanthayam and when the bus was proceeding near T.S.P. Camp Railway Gate, the deceased Ramachandran who is a mentally challenged person suddenly run from left towards right side of the road. The bus driver reduced the speed of the bus and turned to right side of the road. In spite of the efforts taken by him, the said Ramachandran dashed against the bus and invited the accident. The accident occurred only due to the negligence of the deceased Ramachandran and the bus driver was not at fault. The claimants are put to strict proof of age, avocation and income of the deceased. Therefore the respondent is not liable for the claim.
6. At trial, on the Petitioner’s side, the first claimant has examined herself as P.W.1 and through her four documents were marked. On the respondent’s side, the driver of the above said bus has been examined as R.W.1 and no document was marked.
7. Upon consideration, the Tribunal after having appreciated the evidence of both P.W.1 and R.W.1, concluded that it is because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the respondent/Corporation bus, the accident occurred and by fastening the liability on the respondent/Corporation, the compensation was quantified as Rs.6,74,800/-.
8. It has come on record through the evidence of P.W.1 that on 12.12.2007 at about 9.30 a.m while the deceased Ramachandran so as to visit Palani Hill Temple, was standing opposite to Tea stall near railway gate at Dharapuram Main Road, Palani, at that point of time, a bus bearing Registration No. TN 58 N 0202 came from north to south in a rash and negligent manner dashed on the said Ramachandran and due to the said impact, he sustained head injury. On the way to hospital, he lost his breath. The accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the respondent/bus. As the bus is owned by the respondent Corporation, the respondent Corporation is liable to pay compensation to the claimants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased Ramachandran.
9. It is the evidence of R.W.1 that when the bus was nearing TSP camp railway gate, the deceased Ramachandran who was standing on the left side of the road suddenly crossed the road and ran from left side to right side of the road. He slowed down the speed of the bus and turned the bus towards right side of the road. Despite his best efforts, Ramachandran, who is a mentally ill person, dashed against the bus and thus invited the accident. Therefore the bus driver is not responsible for the accident.
10. When a suggestion was posed to P.W.1,she would deny the fact that her husband is a mentally ill person. The version of R.W.
