logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MHC 5916 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Judicature at Madras
Case No : CMA. No. 371 of 2021 & CMP. No. 2448 of 2021
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
Parties : The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd, Thanjavur Versus Dhanalakshmi & Another
Appearing Advocates : For the Appellant: D. Raghu, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1, M. Thamizhavel, Advocate, R2, No Appearance.
Date of Judgment : 03-08-2026
Head Note :-
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173 -
Judgment :-

(Prayer: This civil miscellaneous appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to set aside the Judgment and Decree dt. 25/02/2020 made in MCOP No.70/2018 on the file of the MACT/Chief Judicial Magistrate court, Thiruvarur, by allowing this CMA.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the Transport Corporation against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvarur, dated 25.02.2020 questioning its liability.

2. The 1st respondent is the claimant. The case of the claimant is that on 01.10.2015, she was travelling along with her husband to Velankani temple and had boarded into the bus belonging to the Appellant Transport Corporation at about 7.00 p.m. The bus was proceeding on the Thiruvarur -Tanjore National High Road and at about 8.15 p.m, there was a head-on collision with a lorry. As a result of which, the claimant sustained grievous injuries. The claimant took treatment as an inpatient from 01.10.2015 to 03.10.2015. An FIR came to be registered in Crime No.530 of 2015. It is under these circumstances, the claim petition came to be filed before the Tribunal.

3. The Tribunal on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of the evidence came to the conclusion that the accident had taken place only due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of both the driver of the bus as well as the driver of the lorry.

4. Having rendered the above finding, the Tribunal fixed the total compensation at Rs.25,000/-, which was directed to be paid by the appellant transport corporation, together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the Transport Corporation has filed this appeal questioning its liability.

5. Heard both sides.

6. This Court carefully considered the submissions made on the side of the appellant and the materials available on record.

7. This Court also carefully went through the award passed by the Tribunal.

8. The main ground raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the entire negligence was only on the part of the driver of the lorry and therefore, the Tribunal ought not to have directed the Transport Corporation to pay the compensation.

9. On carefully going through the award passed by the Tribunal, it is seen that the Tribunal has appreciated the evidence and concluded that the negligence was attributable both against the driver of the bus as well as the driver of the lorry. In view of the same, the Tribunal can always direct either of the tortfeasors to pay the compensation.

10. The Tribunal has merely awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation payable together with interest.

11. In the light of the above discussion, the award passed by the Tribunal does not warrant the interference of this Court and the same is hereby confirmed. The Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the compensation, less the amount already deposited, together with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment. The other directions issued by the Tribunal with regard to the mode of payment of compensation remains unaltered.

12. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
 
  CDJLawJournal