Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 8637 (MAD)

K. Vinoth v. V. Shankar

2025-11-13

G Jayachandran, Mummineni Sudheer Kumar

body2025
JUDGMENT : The appeal is preferred by the claimants against the dismissal of the claim petition by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai. 2. On 08.07.2014, at about 15.25 hours, while Vijayalakshmi, wife of the 1 st petitioner and mother of the 2 nd petitioner, was riding a two-wheeler bearing Reg.No.TN-11-W-5236, from Gowrivakkam to Tambaram, on the Tambaram-Velachery Main Road near Alpha School, Sembakkam, a two- wheeler bearing Reg.No.TN-22-AA-8500 came behind the two wheeler of Vijayalakshmi and an MTC bus bearing Reg.No.TN-01-AN-0573 dashed the MTC Bus and fell on the two wheeler of Vijayalakshmi, who was riding on the left side. Vijayalakshmi sustained grievous injuries and was admitted in the hospital. She succumbed to the injuries after six months. Claiming that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the MTC bus driver and therefore, the MTC Management is liable to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,00,000/- since the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.22,000/- per month and her death has caused loss of Financial dependency. It was further stated that a sum of Rs.50 lakhs was spent towards medical treatment. 3. The claim in the petition under various heads is as below:- Part-I (a) Loss of earning from 08.07.2014 to 08.01.2015 Rs.66,000/- (b) Partial loss of earning from (c) At the net rate of Rs. (d) Transport to Hospital Rs.1,24,000/- (e) Extra nourishment - (f) Damage to clothing and articles Rs.20,000/- (g) Others: Medical Expenses Rs.50,00,000/- Attender charges Rs.2,40,000/- Mental agony to the family members of petitioner Rs.3,00,000/- Loss of amenities to the petitioners Rs.55,00,000/- Funeral expenses Rs.30,000/- Pecuniary loss to the petitioners Rs.55,00,000/- Loss of consortium to the 1st petitioner Rs.5,00,000/- Loss of Estate Rs.15,00,000/- Loss of Expectation of life Rs.50,00,000/- Loss of Love and Affection to the Minor Girl Rs.10,00,000/- Loss of Love and affection to the family members of the deceased Rs.10,00,000/- Plain and suffering to the members of Family Rs.4,00,000/- Interest for the money borrowed to the medical expenses Rs.33,20,000/- Part-II (h) Compensation for pain and suffering Rs.5,00,000/- (i) Compensation for continuing or Permanent disability if any --- (j) Compensation for the loss of earning power --- Total Rs.3,00,00,000/- 4. The claim petition is strongly opposed by the Insurance Company, the 3 rd respondent and the MTC Management, the 4 th respondent. 5. The claim petition is strongly opposed by the Insurance Company, the 3 rd respondent and the MTC Management, the 4 th respondent. 5. According to the 3 rd respondent, the offending vehicle not insured with them and therefore, in the absence any insurance coverage, they are not liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 6. As far as the counter of the MTC Management/4 th respondent is concerned, they have specifically contended that the accident occurred only due to the rider of the two wheeler bearing Reg.No.TN-22-AA-8500, who attempted to overtake the other two-wheeler driven by the deceased Vijayalakshmi. Both two-wheelers grazed each other, in which the deceased Vijayalakshmi tumbled down and sustained injury. An F.I.R was registered against the rider of the two wheeler bearing Reg.No.TN-22-AA-8500. The Management of MTC bus cannot be held responsible for the accident, since the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the two-wheeler which grazed the vehicle of the deceased and caused injuries to her. 7. To prove the claim, the husband of the deceased was examined as P.W.1 and one E.Iyanar examined as witness to the occurrence. 22 documents were marked on behalf of the claimants. Whereas, the driver of the MTC bus and the Administrative Officer of the 3 rd respondent/Insurance Company were examined as R.W1 & R.W2 respectively. Two documents were marked on behalf of the respondents. 8. The Tribunal, on examining the documents and the oral evidence, observed that the claimant had not filed F.I.R and the final report to substantiate that the accident occurred in the manner mentioned in the claim petition. The policy copy and the driving license of the two-wheeler not produced. Further, the 3 rd respondent is not the insurer of two wheeler bearing Reg.No.TN-22-AA- 8500. Therefore, without sufficient documentary evidence, the Tribunal was unable to fix negligence. Hence, dismissed the claim petition holding payment of compensation cannot be mulcted on the Transport Corporation. 9. The Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant strenuously argued that the Tribunal failed to take note that the road accident was admitted and also proved through the evidence of eye witness, examined as P.W.2. The Tribunal also failed to take note that the rider of the two-wheeler bearing Reg.No.TN-22-AA-8500 was grazed by the MTC bus and fell on the two- wheeler of the deceased, resulting her fatal injuries. The Tribunal also failed to take note that the rider of the two-wheeler bearing Reg.No.TN-22-AA-8500 was grazed by the MTC bus and fell on the two- wheeler of the deceased, resulting her fatal injuries. The very fact that the MTC driver had gone to the police to give complaint is a proof for involvement of MTC Bus. When three motor vehicles were involved in the accident, the Tribunal ought not to have exonerated one of the vehicles, namely, the MTC bus, from liability. 10. Per contra, the Learned Counsel appearing for the 4 th respondent/MTC submitted that the claimant had miserably failed to prove the basic facts necessary for claiming compensation. The documents relied by the claimants does not indicate that the two-wheeler of the deceased came in contact with the MTC bus. The claimant also failed to adduce evidence that the other two wheeler, which grazed the vehicle of the deceased and caused her death, is duly insured under the 3 rd respondent. In the absence of any Insurance coverage for offending vehicle, namely the two-wheeler Reg.No.TN-22-AA- 8500, the claimants cannot succeed. 11. Heard the Learned Counsel for the appellants and the Learned Counsel for the 3 rd and 4 th respondents. Records perused. 12. It is an unfortunate case of 28 year-old lady, the mother of a minor child, met with an accident and succumbed to her injuries after six months. The 1 st claimant, her husband, substantially spent for her medical treatment, but she succumbed to the injuries and died. 13. Relying upon the evidence of P.W.2, who claims to be a witness to the occurrence, the Learned Counsel for the appellant emphasized that the accident took place due to rashness, negligence and recklessness on the part of MTC Bus driver and the rider of the two-wheeler. He also refers the proof affidavit of the P.W.2, which reads as below:- “On 08-07-2014 at about 15-25 hours, a lady aged about 25 years was riding solo her two wheeler bearing Reg. No. TN-11-W-5236 from East to West (from Gowrivakkam towards Tambaram) on the extreme left side (Southern side) of Tambaram - Velachery Main Road, Chennai. While she was proceeding opposite to Alpha School at Sembakkam on the said Main Road, another two wheeler bearing Reg. No. TN-22-AA-8500 was closely following the vehicle ridden by the lady and both two wheelers were immediately followed by M.T.C. Bus bearing Reg. While she was proceeding opposite to Alpha School at Sembakkam on the said Main Road, another two wheeler bearing Reg. No. TN-22-AA-8500 was closely following the vehicle ridden by the lady and both two wheelers were immediately followed by M.T.C. Bus bearing Reg. No. TN-01-AN 0573 which was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and while overtaking the second Two Wheeler TN-22-AA-8500, the left front portion of said M.T.C. Bus hit the rear portion of second Two wheeler TN-22-AA-8500 and due to this impact, the rider of second Two Wheeler TN-22-AA-8500 lost control and dashed against the Two Wheeler TN-11- W-5236 ridden by the lady which was just ahead of him as a result of which the lady lost her balance and fell on the said road and sustained grievous head injuries besides damage to her Two Wheeler.” 14. The Learned Counsel for the 4 th respondent/Transport Corporation submitted that the cross examination of P.W.2 clearly exposes that he could not have been witness to the occurrence. The contradictions regarding the time of the accident and the reason for his presence in the place of accident does not inspire confidence to believe his version. Even assuming that he had seen the accident, he admits that on hearing the noise, he turned back and saw two two- wheelers lying on the road. Hence, in the absence of F.I.R and the Police report, no adverse inference can be drawn against the bus driver only because the MTC driver informed the police about the accident. The driver of the vehicle examined as R.W.1. He is the only person who can speak about the manner in which the accident occurred in the absence of F.I.R and other eye witnesses. He denies the allegation against him. 15. As far as the evidence of P.W.2, his evidence lacks reliability. His presence at the time of accident is highly doubtful since he could not clearly state at what time he was at the place of accident and how he witnessed the occurrence. His opinion that had the MTC bus driver avoided overtaking the two wheeler, the accident could have been averted is without any corroboration. If really, he was in the scene of occurrence for half an hour, he would have been the first informant or witness to the police investigation. His opinion that had the MTC bus driver avoided overtaking the two wheeler, the accident could have been averted is without any corroboration. If really, he was in the scene of occurrence for half an hour, he would have been the first informant or witness to the police investigation. No motor vehicle report obtained by the claimants to prove the involvement of the MTC bus. The driver of the vehicle been examined as R.W.1, his evidence exonerates him from rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. 16. In said circumstances, the claimant can seek compensation only against the two-wheeler which dashed the vehicle of the deceased. In the absence of proof that the MTC bus also came in contact with the other vehicles, the Management of the MTC bus cannot be held liable for the accident. 17. The trial Court, having considered the evidence of P.W.2, the so-called eye witness and R.W.1, the driver of the vehicle against whom the allegation of rash and negligent driving, dismissed the petition holding no evidence to substantiate the claim. Being a case of oath against oath, the probability of R.W.1's presence and his witness being more reliable, the claim petition was duly dismissed. Unless there is some element of involvement of MTC bus, on sympathy, the claim petition cannot be allowed against the appellant. The mere presence of MTC bus near the scene of occurrence and the fact that the bus driver informed the police as a dutiful citizen, liability cannot be pitted against the MTC bus Management or its driver. 18. The Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bimla Devi and others vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others reported in 2009 (1) TN MAC 700 (SC), wherein, it is held that the claim petitioner is required to establish the case on preponderance of probability and the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied. The preposition of law is well- settled and there is no second opinion about it. However, the claimant is bound to prove that the MTC bus involved in the accident. Since the claimant has failed to prove the said requirement, the claim petition as against the MTC bus is liable to be dismissed. 19. The preposition of law is well- settled and there is no second opinion about it. However, the claimant is bound to prove that the MTC bus involved in the accident. Since the claimant has failed to prove the said requirement, the claim petition as against the MTC bus is liable to be dismissed. 19. In respect of 3 rd respondent/Insurance Company is concerned, though in the petition it is claimed that the other two-wheeler bearing Reg.No.TN-22-AA-8500 was insured under the 3 rd respondent, the evidence produced by the 3 rd respondent would show that the vehicle was not under their insurance coverage. The claimant, who has preferred the appeal under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, is required to prove the negligence. Having failed to prove the negligence on the part of the MTC bus driver, the remedy can only be against the rider of the two-wheeler which hit the victim Vijayalakshmi we find no reference in the claim petition about the rider of the two-wheeler. Hence, the claim petition is bound to fail. Accordingly, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition which requires no interference. 20. In the said circumstances, we hold that the dismissal of the claim petition for want of proof is liable to be confirmed. Accordingly, C.M.A.No.3515 of 2021 stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.