w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Parvathi & Others v/s Janarthanan & Another

    CMA. No. 2562 of 2018

    Decided On, 19 November 2018

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE V.M. VELUMANI

    For the Appellants: N. Umapathi, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1, Exparte, R2, K.J. Sivakumar, Advocate.



Judgment Text

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the fair and decretal order dated 21.08.2008 made in M.C.O.P.No.332 of 2006 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Udumalpet.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the fair and decretal order dated 21.08.2008 made in M.C.O.P.No.332 of 2006 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Udumalpet.

2.

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

By consent, the appeal is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

3. The appellants are the claimants in M.C.O.P.No.332 of 2006 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Udumalpet. They filed the said claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one Ramar, husband of the 1st appellant, father of the 2nd appellant and son of the appellants 3 and 4, who died in the accident that took place on 07.03.2006.

4. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the claim petition, holding that the appellants failed to prove that the accident occured due to the rash and negligent driving by the 1st respondent, who is the driver of the 2nd respondent-Transport Corporation.

5. Against the said order, the appellants/claimants have come out with the present appeal.

6. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3, eye-witnesses. P.W.3 has stated that he alighted from the bus at bus stop and heard somebody struggling for life. P.W.3 has stated that the 1st respondent drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased, which caused accident. The respondents have not filed any document to disprove the claim of the appellants. The appellants filed First Information Report, Charge Sheet and Motor Vehicle Inspector's report as P.W.1 to P.W.3, in which in the Charge Sheet, the 1st respondent is shown as an accused and prayed for allowing the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and to award compensation for the appellants.

7. Mr.K.J.Siva Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-Transport Corporation contended that it is the specific case of the appellants that the deceased tried to stop the bus, to board and the 1st respondent driver of the bus drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased and caused accident. On the other hand, the bus stopped in the bus stop and P.W.2, Manikandan got down from the bus. No other person either boarded or alighted from the bus. P.W.2 is not the person who lodged the complaint. In the First Information Report, the registration number of the bus was not mentioned. The Tribunal appreciating the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence in proper perspective, dismissed the claim petition. There is no reason to set aside the said award and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the 2nd respondent and perused the materials available on record.

9. It is the specific case of the appellants that the deceased tried to stop the bus at the bus stop, to board the bus. The driver of the bus drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased and did not stop the vehicle. On the other hand, the appellants have examined P.W.2 who deposed that he is the only person who got down from the bus in the bus stop. This clearly shows that bus in question stopped in the bus stop, which disproves the case of the appellants that the bus without stopping in the bus stop, dashed against the deceased. P.W.2 has deposed that after he walked certain distance, he heard a sound from somebody and found that the deceased was struggling for life. This means that P.W.2 did not see the accident. He went to the spot only after hearing the noise from the deceased. The evidence of P.W.3 is also not believable.

10. It is pertinent to note that while cross examining R.W.1 by counsel for the appellants, a suggestion has been put that while the deceased was walking, the driver of the bus driving in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased and drove away without stopping. The evidences of P.W.2, P.W.3 and R.W.1 clearly show that accident did not occur as alleged by the appellants and the bus driven by the 1st respondent is not responsible for the accident. The Charge Sheet was filed against the 1st respondent. The Tribunal in the award has stated that the 1st respondent was acquitted.

11. Considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, this Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition after appreciating all the materials on record in proper perspective, holding that the appellants have not proved their claim. There is no perversity in the award warranting interference by this Court. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
OR

Already A Member?

Also