1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29.04.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE K.B.K.VASUKI C.M.A(MD)Nos.594 to 598 of 2011 and M.P(MD)Nos.1 of 2011(In All C.M.As) The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation(Madurai) Ltd., Dindiul Region,Dindigul. ... Appellant in All C.M.As Vs. 1.B.Selvi .. 1st respondent in C.M.A.No.594/2011 2.D.Gandhiammal .. 1st respondent in C.M.A.No.595/2011 3.K.Gurusamy .. 1st respondent in C.M.A.No.596/2011 4.S.Savira 5.S.Rajamohammed .. 1st and 2nd respondents in C.M.A.No.597/2011 6.A.Ummasal Beevi .. 1st respondent in C.M.A.No.598/2011 7.S.Sekar ..3rd respondent in C.M.A.No.597/2011 and the 2nd respondent in other C.M.As 8.New India Assurance Company Ltd., Through its Branch Manager, Palani. .. 4th respondent in C.M.A.No.597/2011 and the 3rd respondent in other C.M.As (3rd respondent in CMA.No.597/11 & 2nd respondent in CMA.No.594 to 596 & 598/11 set ex-parte at lower Court) PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 19.11.2004 made in M.C.O.P.No.13, 15, 16, 18 and 22 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Sub-Court, Periyakulam. For Appellant (In All C.M.As) : M/s.Rajnish Pathiyil For R-1 : Mr.K.Sekar (in C.M.A.Nos.594, 595 and 597/2011 For R-4 in C.M.A.No.597/2011 and R-3 in other C.M.As : Mr.M.Ramanathan COMMON JUDGMENT The batch of appeals are filed by the first respondent/State Transport Corporation against the award of compensation made in favour of either the injured or the L.Rs of the fatal accident victim as the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 case may be on account of the accident occurred at 4.45 p.m on 14.09.1996 near gut road petrol bunk on Vathalakundu main road. The two vehicles involved in the accident are the Tempo van in which the injured claimants and the fatal accident victim were travelling, owned by the second respondent and insured with the third respondent in the claim petition and the State Transport Corporation bus belonging to the first respondent. 2. The claimants filed the claim petitions seeking compensation against the State Transport Corporation by contending that it is the State Transport Corporation bus driver who drove the vehicle rashly and negligently and came on the wrong side and hit against the tempo van and caused the accident. The first respondent/State Transport Corporation though not denied the factum of the accident, denied the manner of the accident as narrated in the claim petition. 3. According to the appellant/State Transport Corporation, the State Transport Corporation bus was being driven by its driver by observing traffic regulations and it is the van driver, who came on the wrong side and dashed against the bus and is solely responsible for the accident. 4. The parties have in support of their respective contentions, adduced oral and documentary evidence. The Trial Court has on the basis of the same and by mainly relying upon the police records such as F.I.R, Charge Sheet, M.V.I report etc., and by highlighting the fault on the part of the State Transport Corporation bus driver, arrived at a conclusion that it is the bus driver who is exclusively responsible for the accident and has proceeded to fix the compensation in each case and fastened the liability upon the State Transport Corporation to pay compensation so awarded by the Tribunal. Aggrieved against the same, the State Transport Corporation has preferred this batch of appeals before this Court. 5. Though the learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously argued against the finding regarding negligence, this Court is not inclined to accept the same. The perusal of the records reveals that the Tribunal has rendered the finding only after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and by relying mainly upon the documentary evidence such as police records as such no ground is made out to hold that the reasoning given by the Tribunal is erroneous. In my considered view, the finding of the Tribunal does not call for any interference. Though the appellant/State Transport Corporation has in the memorandum of grounds raised some objections regarding the quantum of the compensation, the same are not so seriously pressed into service. Further, the quantum of compensation, considering the factors relevant for assessing the compensation do not appear to be excessive. Thus the Tribunal award is liable to be confirmed, in all respects. 6. In the result, the award dated 19.11.2004 made in M.C.O.P.No.13, 15, 16, 18 and 22 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Sub-Court, Periyakulam, stand confirmed. The appellant/State Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 amount into Court if not deposited till date, within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. On deposit of the amount into Court, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the entire compensation amount with accrued interest and costs. The CMAs are accordingly disposed of. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AE) /TRUE COPY/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Sub-Court, Periyakulam. +1cc to Mr.Rajnish Pathiyil, Advocate SR.No.16046 +1cc to Mrr.D.Senthil, Advocate SR.No.16022 +1cc to Mr.K.Sekar, Advocate SR.No.16029 CMA(MD).Nos.594 to 598 of 2011 29.04.2011 pm PA/01.08.2011/3P/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/