Court upheld tribunal's finding of bus driver's rash negligence based on eyewitness testimony, FIR, and final report, dismissing appeal.

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J.

These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals arise out of the common award passed in M.C.O.P. Nos. 46 of 2019 and 47 of 2019 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Uthamapalayam, challenging the impugned judgment dated 15.10.2024.

2.Fact of the case:

2.1. The brief facts leading to the filing of the appeal are as follows: On

14.11.2018 at about 12:30 p.m., the deceased, Jayaprakash, was riding a two- wheeler bearing Registration No. TN-60-W-5251 along with his wife, Prem Anandhi, on the Chinnamanur–Uthamapalayam Main Road, proceeding from north to south. Another two-wheeler, ridden by Jayakumar (brother of the deceased) along with his wife, was following them. While both vehicles were proceeding near the land of Ramalingam Pillai Trust at Chinnamanur, a bus belonging to the appellant Transport Corporation bearing Registration No. TN-58-N-1972, driven in a rash and negligent manner, came in the opposite direction and dashed against the two-wheeler ridden by the deceased. In the impact, both Jayaprakash and Prem Anandhi sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same. A criminal case in Crime No. 529 of 2018 was registered against the driver of the appellant Corporation bus by the jurisdictional police. The legal representatives of the deceased thereafter filed claim petitions in M.C.O.P. Nos. 46 of 2019 and 47 of 2019.

2.2. The appellant Transport Corporation filed a counter denying the manner of the accident and specifically contended that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the deceased. The quantum of compensation was also disputed.

2.3. Before the Tribunal, both cases tried together and on the side of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P1 to P23 were marked. On the side of the respondents, R.W.1 was examined and no documents were marked in M.C.O.P.No.46 of 2019. Insofar as M.C.O.P.No.47 of 2019 is concerned, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked on either side.

3.Finding of the Tribunal:

The Tribunal, upon consideration of the entire evidence on record, particularly the testimony of P.W.3, who is an eyewitness, and the final report filed against the driver of the appellant Transport Corporation, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the appellant’s bus. Accordingly, compensation was awarded in both the claim petitions by a common award under the following heads:

In M.C.O.P.No.46 of 2019

In M.C.O.P.No.47 of 2019:

4. Aggrieved by the said finding, the appellant Transport Corporation has preferred the present appeal, challenging the finding on “negligence aspect”

and “not disputing the quantum of compensation”.

5. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant:

The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that notwithstanding the registration of the FIR and filing of the final report against the bus driver, the evidence on record would disclose that the deceased himself was negligent and had attempted to overtake, thereby sustaining injuries. It is further submitted that the evidence of R.W.1 was not properly appreciated by the Tribunal.

6.Submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent:

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that P.W.3 is an independent eyewitness and his presence at the scene of occurrence has not been disputed. His evidence clearly establishes the negligence on the part of the appellant’s driver.