IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18.12.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR C.M.A.Nos.3973 to 3975 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 in all appeals C.M.A.No.3973 of 2008:- The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., T.S.T.C. Coimbatore Division-II, Chennimalai Road,Erode. ... Appellant/2nd Respondent vs. 1.K.Gopal. 2.N.Selva Raj, (Given up) 3.P.Rajendran, (Given up) 4.Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance co. Ltd., Sundaram Towers, 45, 46 Whites Road, ... Respondents/Petitioner and Chennai-600 014. Respondents 1, 3 and 4 C.M.A.No.3974 of 2008:- The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., T.S.T.C. Coimbatore Division-II, Chennimalai Road,Erode. ... Appellant/2nd Respondent vs. 1.Madurai Veeran. 2.N.Selva Raj, 3.P.Rajendran, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4.Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance co. Ltd., Sundaram Towers, 45, 46 Whites Road, Chennai-600 014. ... Respondents/Petitioner and Respondents 1, 3 and 4 C.M.A.No.3975 of 2008:- The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., T.S.T.C. Coimbatore Division-II, Chennimalai Road,Erode. ... Appellant/2nd Respondent vs. 1.R.Baskar. 2.N.Selva Raj, 3.P.Rajendran, 4.Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance co. Ltd., Sundaram Towers, 45, 46 Whites Road, Chennai-600 014. ... Respondents/Petitioner and Respondents 1, 3 and 4 All the three Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the common award and decrees dated 4.3.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.Nos.95, 96 and 97 of 2007 respectively on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1), Erode. For appellant in all the appeals : Mrs.B.Vijayalakshmi COMMON JUDGMENT The Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation is on appeals challenging the common award dated 4.3.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.Nos.95, 96 and 97 of 2007 respectively on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.1), Erode. 2. According to the appellant's transport corporation, the accident in all the three cases happened between the appellant transport corporation bus and a lorry face to face. In that accident, six passengers died on the spot. Several other passengers in the bus sustained grievous injuries. It is not in dispute that the driver of the lorry died in the accident.The claimants in all the three appeals sustained injuries. All the three claimants filed separate claims for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ compensation in a sum of Rs.50,000/-, Rs.50,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- respectively. 3. The Tribunal decided all the three claims by a common award. In support the claims, all the three injured claimants were examined as P.Ws.1 to 3. One doctor K.R.Sanjeev Rao was examined as P.W.4. Exs.A-1 to A-13 were marked on behalf of the claimants. The conductor of the appellant transport corporation bus was examined as R.W.1. No document was marked on behalf of the appellant transport corporation, the second respondent before the Tribunal. 4. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal awarded compensation in a sum of Rs.13,450/-, Rs.9,500/- and Rs.32,050/- respectively. 5. In the accident, one Karuppasamy, a passenger in the transport corporation bus, who sat behind the driver of the transport corporation bus, suffered injuries and was admitted to the hospital. The police authorities have recorded a statement from him as to the nature of accident. He clearly stated that driver of the bus was rash and negligent in driving the bus and was responsible for the accident that happened. The police after investigation came to the conclusion that the accident happened due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the bus. The Tribunal also noticed that the place of accident was in the middle of the road which had a "S" bend. The width of the road was 18 feet. 6. On behalf of the transport corporation, the conductor of the bus was examined as R.W.1. He deposed that the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus was driving the bus with due care and caution. Surprisingly, that the driver of the bus who escaped from the gruesome accident has not chosen to appear before the Tribunal to state as to how the accident happened. A plea is made by the counsel for the appellant that it is a case of head-on-collision and the negligence should be apportioned on the driver of both the vehicles. 7. This court is not inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant transport corporation for the following reasons:- (i) One Karuppasamy, a passenger, who travelled in the bus sitting behind the driver of the bus had clearly stated that the driver of the bus was rash and negligent in driving at the time of accident. His statement to police is supported by Ex.A-1, the F.I.R., the observation mahazar, the charge-sheet and the investigation report which are marked as exhibits. (ii) The driver of the bus has not been examined to state as to how the accident happened. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (iii) One other factor that will be relevant in this case is that the road is "S" bend and 18 feet wide. The driver of the bus should have slowed down the vehicle and avoided the accident and saved several deaths and injuries to passengers. (iv) Merely on the ground that the accident in this case is a head-on- collision, this court is not inclined to accept the plea of the appellant that the negligence should be apportioned equally on both the drivers.The evidence on record, particularly, the statement of one Karuppasamy, a passenger, who was sitting behind the driver of the bus, clearly establishes the case of negligence on the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus.In view of the uncontroverted statement and documentary evidence on record, the finding of the Tribunal that the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus was rash and negligent in driving the bus stands confirmed. 8. On the quantum of compensation, there is no dispute by the counsel for the appellant. As such, the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal in all the three cases stands confirmed. 9. Finding no merit, all the three Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed at the admission stage. Counsel for the appellant seeks for eight weeks' time to deposit the award amount and is granted and on such deposit, the claimants in all the three appeals are entitled to withdraw the compensation as ordered by the Tribunal. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition in all the appeals are closed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. ts To 1.Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, (The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) Erode. + 3 cc to Mrs.B.Vijayalakshmi,advocate,SR.No.71060 to 71062 C.M.A.Nos.3973 to 3975 of 2008 CK(CO) EM/27.1.09 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/