Court apportions negligence 50:50 between car driver and bus driver for parking without adequate signal in accident.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Reserved on : 27.02.2026 Pronounced on : 24.04.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI C.M.A.No.477 of 2026 and C.M.P. No.5753 of 2026 The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Limited No.2, Taj Tower, Mayiladuthurai …Appellant Vs.

1.Minor. Krithika Represented by her mother and Guardian Vembu

2.The Managing Director, No.2, Pallavan Salai, State Express Transport Corporation, Chennai.

3.Sasikumar … Respondents Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,1988, against the Award dated 23.01.2025 made in M.C.O.P No.226 of 2019 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional Sub Judge, Mayiladuthurai.

For Appellant : Ms. I. Malar For Respondents : Ms. Vasavi Sridevi for R1 Mr. S.S. Santhosakumar for R2

JUDGMEN T

This Appeal is directed against the award dated 23.01.2025 made in M.C.O.P No.226 of 2019 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional Sub Judge, Mayiladuthurai.

2. Shortly stated, on 22.04.2019 at about 04.30 a.m., when the 1^st respondent / petitioner was travelling in a car bearing Registration No.TN 82 1957, belonging to the third respondent, near Puthur Main Road Post Office, the said car dashed against the appellant / transport corporation bus, which was parked in the middle of the road without any signal, as a result of which she sustained multiple injuries.

3. The claimant filed the above MCOP claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in the said accident.

4. The claim was opposed by the Insurance Company and the State Transport Corporation.

5. The Claims Tribunal framed necessary issues and came to the conclusion that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car. A compensation of Rs.1,92,632/- is awarded by the Tribunal to be paid by the appellant/Insurance Company together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realization.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant / Insurance Company would submit that the 3^rd respondent herein is the owner of the car bearing Registration No.TN 82 1957 and the said vehicle has been insured with the appellant at the time of accident. The 1^st respondent herein has preferred a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Mayiladuthurai, alleging that the abovesaid vehicle had involved in an accident on 22.04.2019. In the above claim petition, the claimant would submit that the driver of the bus bearing Registration No.TN 01 N 5160 stopped the vehicle on the middle of the road without making any signal. At 4.30 a.m, the owner cum driver of the car hit against the said bus. He would further submit that, unfortunately, the Tribunal had shifted the entire burden on the appellant / Insurance Company, which is unsustainable; that the Tribunal has not considered the fact that the FIR was filed against the driver of the bus; that the evidence of P.W.1 was also against the 2^nd respondent's bus driver who stopped the bus on the middle of the road without any signal and that due to the negligent act of the driver of the bus, the accident occurred. However, the Tribunal, relying on the final report in which it has been shown as "closed as mistake of fact', arrived at the conclusion that the owner cum driver of the insured vehicle is responsible for the accident, which is incorrect. It is further submitted that the final report was not even marked as exhibit and the 2^nd respondent failed to adduce evidence to substantiate its contention before the Tribunal. He would further submit that even assuming that the referral of the criminal case as mistake of fact which is factually correct, even then, the duty of the claims tribunal, as contemplated under Section 168 of the Motor