The Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Limited (Coimbatore Division II)Chennimalai Road, Eroderep v. Y.Ranganathan2. Kumar3. National Insurance Co. Ltd. No.66

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 1.3.2007CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D. DINAKARANCivil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2416 of 2006 The Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Limited (Coimbatore Division II)Chennimalai Road, Eroderep. by its Managing Director...AppellantVs.

Y.Ranganathan2. Kumar3. National Insurance Co. Ltd. No.66, Perundurai Road Erode 638 011...Respondents-----Appeal filed under Section 173 MV Act 1988 against the awardand Decreetal order dated 18.8.2005 made in MCOP No.38 of 2005 onthe file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief JudicialMagistrate), Erode.-----For Appellant: Mr.A. BabuFor Respondent-1: Mr.A.K.KumarasamyFor Respondent-2:Given upFor Respondent-3:Not ready in notice-----J U D G M E N TThe above appeal is directed against order dated 18.8.2005 madein MCOP No.38 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accident ClaimsTribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Erode.

On 30.8.2001, at about 9.30 am, one Sivakumar was driving aMaruti van belonging to the first respondent bearing registrationNo.PY-01-E-4039 in Gobi-Kolappanu Road. At that time, the appellantCorporation bus bearing registration NO.TN-33-N-0798, which wascoming in the opposite direction, dashed the Maruti van in the frontside, due to which, the van got damaged and the driver alsosustained injuries. The first respondent claimed a sum of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Rs.1,04,000/- towards compensation for the damages of the vehicle.

On the side of the first respondent, P.W.1 – firstrespondent, P.W.2 – driver of the Maruti Van, P.W.3 – Supervisor of Krishna Automobiles, were examined and Exs.P1 to P5 – receipts forpayment towards repair of the vehicle, Ex.P6 – receipt for paymentof surveyor charges, Ex.P7 – FIR copy, Ex.P8 – copy of report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector were marked. On the side of defence, thedriver of the appellant Corporation examined himself as R.W.1 andmarked a copy of the judgment made in C.C.No.9 of 2002 on the fileof Special Judicial Magistrate, Gobichettipalayam, as Ex.R2.

The Tribunal, after analysing the evidence on record, awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum.

Questioning the award of the Tribunal, the appellant hasfiled the above appeal on the ground that the Tribunal had erred inawarding compensation under the head of repair charges and cost ofbody.

I have given careful consideration to the submissions ofboth sides and perused the order of the Tribunal.

The driver of the Maruti Van, P.W.2 had deposed that thedriver of the appellant Corporation bus was driving the vehicle veryrashly and negligently and without noticing the Maruti van, hedashed against it on the front side, after overtaking a lorry. Thedriver of the appellant Corporation bus, R.W.1, had stated that thedriver of the Maruti van, while overtaking a vehicle carrying hay, dashed the bus on the right side and therefore, he alone wasresponsible for the accident. However, he had not lodged anycomplaint about the accident. But, P.W.2, driver of the Maruti vanhad lodged a complaint. There is no explanation on the part ofR.W.1 for not lodging a complaint. Even though a copy of thejudgment made in C.C.No.9 of 2002 acquitting the driver of theappellant Corporation bus giving benefit of doubt was marked, noother evidence was let in by R.W.1 to support his case. Further, he had not taken any action to lodge a complaint through hisdepartment. On the other hand, on going through the evidence ofP.W.2, it is made clear that the accident had occurred only due tothe rash and negligent driving of the driver of the appellantCorporation bus. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the Tribunalhas not erred in holding that the driver of the appellantCorporation bus alone was responsible for the accident.

That apart, as per Ex.P8, report of the Motor VehicleInspector, the vehicle was damaged. The first respondent has paid asum of Rs.50,000/- to Krishna Automobiles, Erode for repairing thesaid vehicle, as per Exs.P2 to P4. The first respondent hadpurchased a Maruti Van Body Cell Assembly for a sum of Rs.50,000/-, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ as per Ex.P5. Therefore, the Tribunal has awarded the said amount, since the same were supported with documents and no objection wasraised by the appellant Corporation.

Accordingly, the award of the Tribunal does not requireinterference by this Court. Finding no merit in the appeal, thesame stands dismissed. Consequently, CMP No.9275 of 2006 is alsodismissed. No costs. KplSd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. RegistrarToThe Chief Judicial MagistrateMotor Accident Claims TribunalErode.2. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras+ one cc to Mr. A. Babu, Advocate sr no. 12514+ one cc to Mr. A.K. Kumarasamy, Advocate sr no. 12452JRG(CO)NM(17.03.07)CMA No.2416 of 2006.