The Managing Director v. The Murugan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 25.01.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA C.M.A. No.122 of 2016 & C.M.P.No.1101 of 2016 The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (Villupuram Division-I), No.3/137, Salamedu, Valudhareddy, Villupuram.
.. Appellant/Respondent
Versus
Murugan .. Respondent/Claimant PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree dated 16.09.2014 made in M.C.O.P. No.570/2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (V Judge, Small Causes Court), Chennai.
For Appellant:
Mr.K.J.Sivakumar
J U D G M E N T
The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, filed by the appellant/Transport corporation, is directed against the correctness of the impugned award dated 16.09.2014 made in M.C.O.P. No.570/2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (V Judge, Small Causes Court), Chennai, awarding a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation. Aggrieved by the impugned award, Transport Corporation has preferred this appeal. 2.According to the claimant, on 18.10.2008 at about 15.10 hours, while the claimant was riding the motor cycle bearing Regn. No.TN 02 L9734 from Cuddalore to Panrutti Road, near Pakkiripalayam Bus Stop, a bus bearing Registration No.TN 32 N 1402, driven by its driver, suddenly applied the break and dashed against the motor cycle. As a result of which, the claimant sustained grievous injuries. He claimed a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- as compensation.
The appellant/Transport Corporation resisted the claim.
3.After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation payable to the claimant with interest at the rate of 7.5%. Aggrieved by that award, the appellant-Transport Corporation has filed the present appeal.
4.Heard Mr.K.J.Sivakumar, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the documents on record. On the side of claimant, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P10 were marked. On the side of the appellant/Transport corporation, the driver of the appellant Transport Corporation bus was examined as R.W.1 and no document was marked.
5.Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Transport Corporation would submit that when the appellant's Transport Corporation bus started its trip and proceeding slowly after alighting a old lady at Pakkiripalayam bus stop, the rider of the two wheeler, carrying load, without any control dashed against the back side of the bus and invited the accident. Thus, the Tribunal has miserably failed to consider this vital aspect and as a result of which, an amount of Rs.25,000/- has been awarded as compensation. When the claimant is responsible for the accident and that he himself invited the accident, the Tribunal ought not to have considered the evidence of P.W.1/ claimant, whose evidence has not been corroborated by any other independent witness. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be interfered with.
6.It is seen that the Tribunal, by considering Ex.P8/F.I.R., which corroborates the evidence of the Transport Corporation and by taking support of the evidence of P.W.2, who was an eye witness to the accident, found that the claimant, who was riding his two wheeler behind the bus, carrying some savukku kattai, was not able to control the speed of his vehicle, hit against the bus and invited the accident and that no other tort feasor was involved or responsible in causing the accident. Therefore, based on the 'no fault liability', applying Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal has awarded compensation to the claimant to a limited extent and thus the Tribunal has observed as follows:
"7.2.Under Section 140 of Act, the owner of the Motor Vehicle is liable to pay in terms of the said Section where the death or permanent disablement of a person occurs on account of the accident arising out of use of a Motor Vehicle. The extent of compensation is Rs.50,000/- in case of death and Rs.25,000/- in case of injury and the claimant is not required to plead and establish that the death or permanent disablement was due to any wrongful act neglect or default of the owner or owners of the vehicle concerned or by other
person. A combined reading of sub sections (1)(2)(3) of Section 140 imply that the liability is in the realm or strict liability, but there is a ceiling put on the compensation that can be claimed. However under sub section 4 of Section 140, the right of the claimant under Section 140 cannot be defeated or reduced on the basis of the share of such person (injured-claimant or the claimant) in responsibility of such death or permanent disability. This means that where the injured-claimant or the deceased has contributed to the negligence to any extent even under sub sections (1)(2) the claim petition can succeed. 7.3.In this case, the injured was driving the vehicle on his way when he met with an accident sustained grievous injuries and neither was there any other tort feasor involved in the accident. In such as the injured would be entitled to compensation u/s.140 of the Act on 'no fault basis'."
7.Mere perusal of the above reasons clearly show that the Tribunal has rightly awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation on 'no fault basis' under Section 140 of the Act, considering the manner in which the accident had occurred. Therefore, the appeal is devoid of any merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, Connected CMP. is closed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS II) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar vga To
1. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (V Judge, Small Causes Court), Chennai 2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.
+ 1 cc to Mr.K.J. Sivakumar, Advocate Sr.5251 C.M.A. No.122 of 2016 SV(CO) Eu 10.05.16