Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs Anandan on 30 January, 2017
Author: M.V.Muralidaran
Bench: M.V.Muralidaran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30.01.2017
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN
C.R.P. (NPD) Nos.2680 to 2686 of 2013
and
M.P.Nos.1 to 1 of 2013 (7 petitions)
C.R.P.(NPD) No.2680 of 2013:
The Managing Director,
Karnata State Road Transport Corporation Limited,
Bangalore Central Division,
Bangalore 560 027,
Karnataka State. .. Petitioner
Vs
1. Anandan
2. The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited,
Salem Division, Ramakrishna Road,
Salem Town, Salem District. .. Respondents
and batch cases.
For Petitioner
:
Mr.T.Thiyagarajan
For Respondents
:
Mr.B.Jawahar
for 1st respondent
Mr.D.Venkatachalam
for 2nd respondent
ORDER
The petitioner has filed these civil revision petitions challenging the decree and judgment passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvannamalai, in M.C.O.P.Nos.321, 322, 323, 325, 326, 329 and 330 of 2011, dated 29.1.2013.
2. All these civil revision petitions arise out of a single accident and as a lead case, this Court refers to the facts in C.R.P.No.2680 of 2013. The facts in a nutshell are as under: The first respondent filed M.C.O.P.No.321 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvannamalai, claiming a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation in respect of an accident that took place on 30.10.2010.
3. It is stated that the petitioner Corporation had filed a counter disputing negligence as well as other aspects, including payment of compensation. However, the Tribunal by its order dated 29.1.2013 passed an award of Rs.12,000/- fixing 50% liability on the petitioner Corporation together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of compensation of amount.
4. Assailing the decree and judgment passed in the above terms, the present revision petitions are filed.
5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the driver of the second respondent vehicle, who drove in a rash and negligent manner, was solely responsible for the negligence and the accident and, therefore, the Tribunal erred in fastening the liability of payment of compensation on the petitioner.
6. It is further contended that it was due to the bursting of the front tyre of the second respondent vehicle that the accident had occurred and, therefore, the second respondent is solely responsible to compensate the victims and, therefore, the Tribunal ought not to have held the petitioner Corporation liable to pay compensation.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents, in one voice, reiterated the reasons that weighed with the Tribunal in passing the impugned award and prayed for dismissal of these revisions.
8. I heard Mr.T.Thiyagarajan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.B.Jawahar, learned counsel for the 1st respondent and Mr.D.Venkatachalam, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and perused the documents available on record.
9. At the outset, it is to be noted that in respect of the very same accident, when the petitioner herein, namely the Managing Director, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Limited, challenged the judgment and decree dated 29.1.2013 in M.C.O.P.No.318 of 2011 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvannamalai, this Court confirmed the award fixing negligence in equal proportion against both the drivers of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation bus and Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation bus. By order dated 30.6.2014 passed in C.M.A.Nos.1788 to 1793 of 2014, this Court held as under:
21. Both the Transport Corporations have sought for reversal of the finding, fixing on their drivers. The Claims Tribunal, on cumulative assessment of evidence adduced, held that the accident occurred, due to the rash and negligent driving of both the drivers. Though the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation has contended that due to the tyre burst, the Tamil Nadu State Transport Bus, was dragged on to the right side of the road and thus, unable to control the same, the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation bus driver dashed against the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation bus, the same has not been proved.
22. Perusal of the common award, does not indicate that the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, has taken any steps to summon the Motor Vehicles Inspector or mark his Report, pertaining to both the vehicles and adduced evidence, as to whether, there was a mechanical default or really, the front tyre of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation bus, was burst or not. It is well known that the one, who has propounded a fact, as a defence, has to prove the same.
23. Merely because the defacto complainant has stated that he heard a noise, at the time of accident, that would alone, is not sufficient to conclude that the accident occurred due to tyre burst. Motor Vehicles Inspector's Report, pertaining to the abovesaid vehicles, are the best evidence to speak about any mechanical default. Admittedly, the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation has not taken any steps to examine the concerned Motor Vehicles Inspector, or summon the reports.
....
29. In view of the above discussion and decisions and the categorical admission by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, before the Claims Tribunal, as stated supra, this Court is not inclined to reverse the finding, fixing negligence in equal proportion against both the drivers of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation bus and Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation bus.
10. In fact, when the Managing Director of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, viz., the second respondent, challenged the very same award before this Court by filing C.R.P. (NPD) Nos.4336 to 4342 of 2014, by order dated 3.12.2014, this Court after referring to the above said order dated 30.6.2014 passed in C.M.A.Nos.1788 to 1793 of 2014 in respect of the very same incident/accident, held as under:
7. On evaluation of pleadings and evidence, the Claims Tribunal held that both the drivers of the buses were equally negligent in causing the accident and accordingly, determined the quantum of compensation.
8. Being aggrieved by the finding, fixing negligence in equal proportion, the Managing Director, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Limited, has filed C.M.A.Nos.2427 to 2432 of 2013, and the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Salem Division, has filed C.M.A.No.1788 to 1793 of 2014, challenging the judgment of the tribunal in respect of M.C.O.P.Nos.318 to 332 of 2011 confirming the judgment of the tribunal fixing the negligence in equal proportion against both the drivers of the respective Transport Corporations.
9. In view of the dismissal of the appeals filed by the Transport Corporations, these Civil Revision Petitions which also relate to the same accident in question are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, they are dismissed.
11. It is admitted that the above two decisions of this Court relate to the same incident, which is involved even this batch of cases. Therefore, the above said findings apply on all fours to the case on hand and this Court finds no reason to differ from the view taken in the above said decisions.
In the result, these civil revision petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
30.01.2017 vs Note:Issue order copy on 03.10.2018 Index : Yes To The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Salem Division, Ramakrishna Road, Salem Town, Salem District.
M.V.MURALIDARAN, J.
vs C.R.P. (NPD) Nos.2680 to 2686 of 2013 and M.P.Nos.1 to 1 of 2013 (7 petitions) 30.01.2017