CMA No. 1652 / 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 14.08.2023

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1652 of 2022

and

C.M.P. No. 12289 of 2022

The Managing Director,

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,

Salem Division.

... Appellant

Versus

1.Periyammal

2.Minor Praveen

3.Minor Muthu

(Minors rep. by their guardian/NF/ mother)

4.Iyyakannu

5.Periyammal

... Respondents

PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking to set aside the decree and Judgment

dated 23.11.2021 made in M.C.O.P. No. 292 of 2019 on the file of the

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III Additional District Judge,

Villupuram @ Kallakurichi.

For Appellant : Mr. D. Nitin.

For Respondents : Mr. P. Anbazhagan for R1 to R5.

J U D G M E N T

1/11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CMA No. 1652 / 2022

The appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the award

passed by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P. No. 292 of 2019 dated 23.11.2021.

2.The respondents had filed a claim petition before the Tribunal

stating that on 20.06.2019, while the deceased was riding his two

wheeler bearing Registration No.TN 77 F 0608 on the left side of Salem

– Vridhachalam main road near V.Krishnapuram Anjaneyar Temple, a

bus bearing Registration No.TN 30 N 1818 belonging to the appellant

driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed the deceased,

as a result of which the deceased sustained severe injuries and died on

the spot.

3.The appellant filed counter denying all the averments made in

the claim petition stating that; the accident occurred only due to the rash

and negligent riding of the deceased; that since the deceased had ridden

his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner, he hit another two

wheeler which was proceeding on the same direction and thus, lost

balance and dashed the bus belonging to the appellant which was

proceeding from the opposite direction; that the deceased did not possess

valid driving license and did not wear helmet at the time of accident; and

2/11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CMA No. 1652 / 2022

that the appellant is not liable to pay compensation to the respondents;

and that the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties;

and that in any case, the compensation claimed was excessive and prayed

for dismissal of the claim petition.

4. The respondents examined three witness as PW1 to PW3 and

marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.21. On the side of the appellant, the driver of the

bus has been examined as RW1 and marked Ex.R1 and Ex.R2.

5.The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary

evidence held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent

driving by the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant. Though the

Tribunal arrived at a sum of Rs.16,92,000/- as compensation, due to total

mistake, directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.16,72,000/- as

compensation to the respondents at the first instance and recover the

same from the first respondent. Aggrieved by the said award, the

appellant had preferred the instant appeal.

6.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the driver of

the appellant corporation was examined as RW1 to show that the

3/11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CMA No. 1652 / 2022

accident took place only due to the negligence of the deceased. The

manner in which the accident took place also confirms the said fact.

Ex.P.2, final report of the police corroborate the evidence of RW1.

According to the appellant, when the deceased attempted to overtake

another two wheeler, he had rammed into the said two wheeler lost

balance fell on the backside of the bus as a result of which the rear tire of

the bus ran over the deceased. Therefore, the Tribunal was wrong in

fixing the entire negligence on the driver of t