Dismissed

The Managing Director, v. Geetha

Madras HC19 Dec 2023CMA/2316/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Transport Corporation challenging the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's award. The Court rejected the challenge to the finding of negligence against the bus driver, confirming the Tribunal's decision despite the appellant's failure to adduce evidence. The appeal was dismissed without costs as the compensation amount was not challenged.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; Tribunal Award and Decree confirmed; no order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

The Managing Director, Vs Geetha — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

C.M.A.No.2316 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 19.12.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

¶6

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2316 of 2021 and Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.12921 of 2021

¶7

The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Limited, 12, Ramakrishna Road, Salem. ... Appellant / 2

¶8

... Appellant / 2^nd respondent Vs.

¶9

Geetha 2. Gokila 3. S. Yamuna 4. S. Vasanthi 5. S. Somasundram ... Respondents/Petitioners 6. M. M. Rathinavel ... Respondent/1^st Respondent

¶10

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and decree dated 03.03.2020 made in M.C.O.P.No.124 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, IV Additional District Judge, Erode District, Bhavani.

¶11

For Appellant : Mr.D. Raghu For R1 to R5 : Mr. R. Karthikeyan For R6 : Given up

¶12

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

¶13

1/6

¶14

C.M.A.No.2316 of 2021

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the

¶17

appellant-Transport Corporation, seeking to set aside the Award passed in M.C.O.P.No.124 of 2017, dated 03.03.2020 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, IV Additional District Court, Erode District at Bhavani, challenging the negligent act against its driver.

¶18

The appellant-Transport Corporation is the second respondent in M.C.O.P.No.124 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, IV Additional District Judge, Erode District at Bhavani.

¶19

The case of the claimants is that on 17.11.2010 he was

¶20

riding his twowheeler namely, Herohonda motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN 33 AQ 2742 on the Sankari to Bhavani Main Road, while he reached near Pachakkadu, opposite to the Eagle Service Station around 8.30 p.m., the driver of the bus bearing Registration No.TN 30 N 0294 came from the opposite direction and dashed on the twowheeler, which resulted in causing severe injuries and subsequently, he succumbed to death. In this regard, a criminal case was registed in Crime No.845 of 2010 under Sections 279 and 304 A IPC against the bus driver on the file of the Sankari Police Station.

¶21

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

¶22

2/6

¶23

C.M.A.No.2316 of 2021

¶24

The second respondent filed counter and disputed the negligent act and they also contended that the rider of the twowheeler suddenly entered into the road in negligent manner which resulted in the accident had occurred. They have also contended that the complaint was registered against the rider of the twowheeler.

¶25

The Tribunal after considering the evidence of eyewitness,

¶26

P.W.2 has held that the driver of the bus is responsible for causing the death of the deceased.

¶27

Aggrieved over the above said finding of negligent act against the driver of the bus, this appeal has been filed.

¶28

The learned counsel for the Transport Corporation has

¶29

submitted that the evidence of P.W.2 is not properly appreciated by the Tribunal and the negligent act attributed against the rider of the twowheeler has not been properly appreciated. Hence prays to set aside the above said finding and to allow the appeal.

¶30

I have considered the rival submissions made on both sides

¶31

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

¶32

3/6

¶33

C.M.A.No.2316 of 2021

¶34

and also perused the records.

¶35

Admittedly, in this case, the Transport Corporation has not

¶36

adduced any evidence on their side. P.W.2, who is the eyewitness to the occurrence has stated that while the deceased was riding his twowheeler with due care and caution on the left hand side of the road on the Sankari to Bhavani main road, the bus, which was came in the opposite direction in high speed and hit on the twowheeler. He has also stated that he has given information about the occurrence to the Sankari Police station and a criminal case was also registered. He has also denied the suggessions that the deceased had hit on the bus and fell down, which resulted in backwheel of the bus run over the deceased. However, the Rough Sketch and Motor Vehicle Inspection Report shows that the occurrence had taken place as stated by P.W.2 and the evidence of P.W.2 is corroborated by the other evidence.

¶37

The Transport Corporation has not adduced any contra evidence and based on the evidences placed on record, the Tribunal has rightly held that the driver of the bus is responsible for the accident. Hence, this Court finds no infirmity in the said finding. Accordingly, the challenge

¶38

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

¶39

4/6

¶40

C.M.A.No.2316 of 2021

¶41

made on the finding of the Tribunal that the negligent act is liable to be rejected. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Transport Corporation has not challenged the same and it is also stated that they have already deposited the entire claim amount. Considering the same, this Court is of the view that without considering the quantum of compensation, this appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶42

In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the Transport Corporation is dismissed. The Award and Decree passed by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.124 of 2017, dated 03.03.2020, by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, IV Additional District Judge, Erode District at Bhavani is hereby confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs in the present appeal. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.

¶43

19.12.2023

¶44

ssi Index:Yes/No Speaking Order:Yes/No Neutral Citation Case: Yes/No

¶45

K.RAJASEKAR,J.

¶46

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

¶47

5/6

¶48

C.M.A.No.2316 of 2021

¶49

ssi

¶50

To:

¶51

The IV Additional District Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Erode District, Bhavani.

¶52

The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Chennai.

¶53

C.M.A.No.2316 of 2021

¶54

19.12.2023

¶55

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

¶56

6/6

The Managing Director, v. Geetha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Managing Director, v. Geetha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Selvamani Vs E.Yovan Doss

K.Balamurugan Vs the Managing Director

M.Vijayalakshmi Vs Union of India

Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs Malliga

Uthirapathy Vs Jerome Stanly

Vijayachithra Vs the Managing Director