IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated :24.02.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR CMA No.272 of 2025 The Managing Director, TNSTC, No.12, Ramakrishna Road, Salem – 2. ... Appellant Vs.

1.Suseela

2.Minor Samundeswari

3.Minor Akash

4.Minor Kanagavalli

5.Chinnammal (The minors 2 to 4 are represented by their natural guardian mother i.e., 1^st respondent)

6.A.S.Palanisamy ... Respondents Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988, pleased to set aside the judgment and decree dated 27.06.2024 passed in MCOP.No.91 of 2020 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Attur.

For appellant : Mr.D.Nitin For Respondents

1 to 5 : Mr.P.Tamilavel Not ready notice in R6

JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarding compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- to the injured claimants, the Transport Corporation has come before this court by way of this appeal.

2. It is the case of the respondents/claimants that on

17.07.2018, when the husband of the first claimant, the father of the claimants 2 to 4 and son of the 5^th claimant was riding his two wheeler, the bus belonging to the State Transport Corporation came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two wheeler. As a result of the accident the victim sustained fatal injury and died on the spot. The claimants have claimed compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-. The Tribunal based on the evidence available on record came to the conclusion that primarily the accident had taken place due to the negligence of the driver of the Corporation bus. The Tribunal fixed 10% of the Contributory negligence on the part of the victim for his failure to wear helmet. Based on the evidence available on record, the Tribunal passed award granting compensation of Rs.19,28,700/-. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant Corporation has come before this court by way of this appeal.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the deceased, at the time of accident, crossed the middle of the zebra line, as a result of which, the accident had occurred, therefore, the Tribunal ought to have fixed 50% of the contributory negligence on the part of the victim. The learned counsel further submitted that criminal case filed against the driver of the appellant/Corporation ended in acquittal and the said document was marked as Ex.R1. The Tribunal without taking into consideration the acquittal of the driver of the appellant Corporation wrongly held that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the appellant corporation and hence the award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants would submit that the Tribunal based on evidence of PW.1 and eye witness of PW.2 and the contents of FIR, came to the conclusion that the negligence is on the part of the driver of the appellant corporation and the same requires no interference by this Court.

5. In order to prove the negligence, the first claimant was examined as PW.1, she was not an eye witness. Therefore, her evidence is not been useful to decide the quantum of negligence. However, eye witness was examined as PW.2 and his evidence is in accordance with the averments contained in the FIR. It is not in dispute that Ex.P1-FIR was filed against the driver of the appellant vehicle. Subsequently, charge sheet was filed and the criminal trial ended in acquittal. It is settled law that acquittal in criminal case is not a ground to come to the conclusion that there was no negligence on his part. In the case on hand, the Tribunal rightly placed reliance on FIR and evidence of PW.2 and came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the appellant/corporation. The said finding requires no interference.

6. The Tribunal fixed 10% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased mainly on the grou