Dismissed¶60-61

Karthikeyan v. Anandakumar

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – S.173

Madras HC25 Jun 2025CMA/684/2021

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, CMA No. 684 of 2021, decided 25-06-2025 by T.V.THAMILSELVI, J. Keywords: Section 173 Motor Vehicles Act 1988; civil miscellaneous appeal; motor accident claim; MCOP No.253/2013; Tribunal dismissal upheld; negligence of two-wheeler rider; bus driver not negligent; Ex.P4 rough sketch; accident in middle of road; FIR by bus driver; minor rider without driving licence; three persons on two-wheeler; Transport Corporation bus TN-33-N-2415; accident dated 01.07.2012; appeal dismissed; no costs; no compensation awarded.

What did the court decide?

None - the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed, the Tribunal's dismissal of the claim petition is upheld, and there is no order as to costs. ¶60-61

Karthikeyan Vs Anandakumar — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None - the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed, the Tribunal's dismissal of the claim petition is upheld, and there is no order as to costs.

¶60-61

Issue for consideration

Whether the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petition by not properly considering the negligence of the bus driver, or whether the accident was attributable to the negligence of the two-wheeler rider (claimant), such that the Tribunal's findings require no interference.

¶25-26

Court's answer

As per the rough sketch Ex.P4, the accident occurred in the middle of the road and there is no material proof that it happened due to the negligence of the bus driver; therefore the Tribunal rightly considered the available evidence and dismissed the claimant's petition.

¶48

Ratio / Principle

Negligence on the part of the claimant is clearly established: no age proof was produced to show he was a major, no valid driving licence was produced, and all three persons including two minors were riding on the two-wheeler driven by the claimant.

¶53-54

Key takeaways

In view of the above facts and circumstances, the findings rendered by the Tribunal require no interference and the dismissal of the claim petition is upheld.ratio¶55-57

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - S.173 - Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by the claimant challenging the Tribunal's dismissal of his injury claim (MCOP No.253/2013, Subordinate Court, Bhavani, dated 10.10.2018). Accident of 01.07.2012, around 3.00 p.m.: a two-wheeler driven by the appellant, carrying his mother and minor sister, collided with a Transport Corporation bus (TN-33-N-2415); FIR was lodged by the bus driver attributing the accident to the two-wheeler rider. Per rough sketch Ex.P4 the accident occurred in the middle of the road, with no material proof of the bus driver's negligence. The appellant produced no age proof or valid driving licence, and three persons including two minors rode on the two-wheeler he drove; his negligence was held clearly established. The Tribunal's dismissal was upheld and the appeal dismissed, with no order as to costs.

¶1

CMA No. 684 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 25-06-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

¶6

CMA No. 684 of 2021

¶7

KARTHIKEYAN

¶8

S/o.Sivakumar, 61, Mekkan St, Old Bus Stand Road, Bhavani Town And Tk, Erode Dist.

Appellant(s)

ANANDAKUMAR

S/o.Ramasamy, 5/269, Jeeva Transport Colony, Senbagapudur Post, Sathyamangalam

¶13

Respondent(s)

¶14

PRAYER

¶15

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the

¶16

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, prayed to set aside the award and judgment made in

¶17

MCOP No.253/2013 on the file of Subordinate court, Bhavani, dated

¶18

10.10.2018.

¶19

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

¶20

CMA No. 684 of 2021

¶21

For Appellant(s): C.Kulanthaivel For Respondent(s): M/s. M. Murali Vinodh For R2 R1 - Left

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Challenging the dismissal order passed by the Tribunal, the claimant has

¶24

preferred this appeal.

¶25

2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the negligence on

¶26

the part of the bus driver was not properly considered by the Tribunal, which erroneously dismissed the claim petition. He further contended that the claimant

¶27

had proved the case before the Tribunal by examining eye-witnesses and

¶28

therefore prayed to set aside the findings of the Tribunal.

¶29

By way of reply, the learned counsel for the second respondent

¶30

submitted that, at the time of the accident, the two-wheeler was being driven by

¶31

the injured, who was a minor and did not possess a valid driving licence. In addition to the injured, his minor sister and mother were also traveling on the

¶32

two-wheeler, three persons in total. The vehicle went out of control and hit the

¶33

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

¶34

CMA No. 684 of 2021

¶35

road divider, resulting in the accident. There was no negligence on the part of

¶36

the bus driver, and the Tribunal rightly appreciated the facts and dismissed the

¶37

claim. Hence, the findings require no interference.

¶38

On considering the entire facts of the case, it is revealed that the

¶39

alleged accident occurred on 01.07.2012 at around 3.00 p.m., when the two-

¶40

wheeler, driven by the appellant and carrying his mother and minor sister, collided with a bus belonging to the Transport Corporation bearing registration

¶41

No. TN-33-N-2415. As a result, the petitioner sustained injuries.

¶42

The complaint was lodged by the driver of the bus, who reported that

¶43

the accident occurred due to the negligence of the two-wheeler rider. Based on this, an FIR was registered. Though the learned counsel for the appellant argued

¶44

that the injured's mother also filed a complaint, no such document or evidence

¶45

was produced before the Court.

¶46

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

¶47

CMA No. 684 of 2021

¶48

Even according to the rough sketch marked as Ex.P4, it is evident that

¶49

the accident occurred in the middle of the road, and there is no material proof to show that the accident happened due to the negligence of the bus driver. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly considered the available evidence and dismissed the claimant’s petition.

¶50

Furthermore, as per the testimony of P.W.1, it was admitted that the

¶51

appellant was studying in +2 (Higher Secondary). However, no age proof was

¶52

produced by the appellant to establish that he was a major at the time of the

¶53

accident. Nor was any valid driving licence produced. Additionally, all three persons, including two minors, were riding on the two-wheeler, which was

¶54

being driven by the claimant. Therefore, negligence on the part of the claimant is clearly established.

¶55