Kannan v. The Managing Director

JUDGMENT The claimant aggrieved by the rejection of payment of compensation and fixing a sum of Rs.25,000/- under the no fault liability principle, has filed the present appeal against the award passed by Exclusice MACT, Tirupur in M.C.O.P.No.98 of 2016 dated 15.06.2022.

¶2The case of the claimant is that on 24.10.2015, he alighted the Government bus and the bus was started in a rash and negligent manner even before the claimant got into the bus. As a result, the claimant fell down and the rear wheel ran over the legs of the claimant and he sustained crush injuries. It is under these circumstances, the claim petition came to be filed before the Tribunal seeking for payment of compensation.

¶3The Tribunal on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, came to a conclusion that the accident had taken place only due to the negligence on the part of the claimant and therefore, the claim made by the claimant for payment of compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was rejected. However, the Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.25,000/- under no fault liability under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the present appeal has been filed before this Court.

¶4Heard Mr.Ma.P.Thangavel, learned counsel for appellant and Mr.N.Murali Vinoth for sole respondent.

¶5This Court carefully considered the submissions made on either side and the materials available on record.

¶6This Court also carefully went through the award passed by the Tribunal.

¶7The Tribunal has come to a conclusion that the accident had taken place only due to the negligence on the part of the claimant. To reach this conclusion, the Tribunal has heavily relied upon the FIR that was marked as Ex.P1 and also the evidence of RW1.

¶8The claimant was examined as PW1. The claimant during chief examination has stated that he was waiting near Thiruppur old bus stand on 24.10.2015 in order to get into the bus which was going from Thiruppur to Perumanallur. He alighted the bus. The claimant was supposed to get down at Kumar Nagar. However, the claimant some how missed this bus stop and he informed the same to the conductor of the bus. Therefore, the bus was driven slowly in between Kumar Nagar and the RTO office. When the claimant attempted to get down, he fell down and the rear wheel ran over the legs resulting in the claimant sustaining crush injuries. The very same version has also come out even during the cross examination.

¶9The conductor of the bus was examined as RW1 on the side of the respondent corporation. He has stated in the chief examination that the claimant was travelling in the bus and that he all of a sudden attempted to get down from the bus near the RTO office even before the bus came to a halt. As a result, he lost his balance and fell down resulting in the injuries sustained by him. During cross examination, RW1 has admitted the fact that the FIR was registered as against the bus driver and that he was not aware of the final report that was filed by the police.

¶10The accident had taken place on 24.10.2015 at about 3.30 a.m. and the information that was given to the police station on the same day at about 23.30 hours. This is the earliest version that was given to the police. Therefore, there was no possibility of any deliberation considering the nature of injuries that were sustained. For proper appreciation, the information that was recorded in the FIR is extracted hereunder :- 23/10/2015 k; njjp fhiy 10/00 kzpf;F vdJ kUkfdpd; mg;gh ,we;j fhuzj;jhy; rk;gtk; g[Jg;gl;of;F brd;W ghu;j;Jtpl;L ,ut[ 9/30 kzpf;F g[Jg;gl;oapypUe;J g[wg;gl;L njdp g!; epiyak; te;J jpUg;g{u; g!;rpy; Vwp 3/30 kzpf;F jpUg;g{u; g!; epiyak; te;Jk; jpUg;g{u; g!; epiyaj;jpypUe;J Fkhu; efu; bry;Yk; TN 33 N1994 jpUg;g{u; Kjy; bgUkhey;Yhu; bry;Yk; g!;rpy; Vwp Fkhu; efh; g!; !;lhg; ,w';Ftjwf;F kwe;jjhy; fz;lf;fluplk; brhy;yp g!; epWj;j brhd;ndd;/ gpd;du; g!; iutu; tz;oia Fkhu; efuUf;F RTO MgpRf;Fk; ,ilapy;tz;oia bkJthf brd;w nghJ ehd; goapypUe;J fPnH ,w';f Kw;gl;l nghJ vdJ if eGtp fPnH tpGe;jjhy; g!;rpy; gpd;gf;f ilau; vdJ ,U fhy;fspYk; VwpaJk; vdJ ,uz;L fhy;fspYk; vYk;g[ Kwpt[ Vw;gl;ljhy; mUnfapUe;j bghJ kf;fspd; cjtpa[ld; 108 Mk;g[yd;!; Kpyk; jpUg;g{u; GH f;F brd;W Kjy; cjtp bra;J nky; rpfpr;irf;fhf nfhit CMC y; ml;kpl; bra;J rpfpr;irapy; ,Ue;j nghJ mDg;gu;ghisak; nghyPrhu; vd;id tprhupj;jPu;fs; ehd; ele;jij brhd;ndd;/

¶11The short question that arises for consideration is as to whether the accident had taken place purely due to the negligence on the part of the claimant as was held by the Tribunal.

¶12There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the claimant was travelling in the bus. This was spoken to both by the claimant as well as the conductor, who was examined as RW1. The statement of the claimant that was recorded in the hospital which formed the basis for the FIR (Ex.P1) shows that the claimant was supposed to get down at Kumar Nagar bus stop. He missed this bus stop and therefore, he requested the conductor to stop the bus. As a result, the bus was slowed down near the RTO office and when the claimant was attempting to get down, he fell down and the rear wheel ran over the legs resulting in crush injury.

¶13The above version given by the claimant is very natural and there is no deliberation involved since the statement was recorded by the police in the hospital where the claimant was undertaking treatment. If the bus driver is not inclined to stop the bus, he could have informed the same to the claimant and the claimant could have been asked to get down in the next bus stop. However, the driver slowed down the bus near the RTO office to enable the claimant to get down. Unfortunately, the claimant lost balance and fell down and the rear wheel ran over the legs.

¶14It is a common practice adopted by many bus drivers whenever any passenger wants to get down from the bus, when he / she misses the bus stop and makes a request to get down before the bus reaches the next stop. On many occasions, the passengers get down once the bus is slowed down and thereafter, the bus proceeds to the next stop. Unfortunately, in this case, the claimant lost his balance and fell down.

¶15The Tribunal went wrong in attributing the entire negligence against the claimant based on what was stated in the FIR. The FIR must be read in its entireity and a portion of the FIR cannot be considered and held against the claimant. The reason as to why the claimant got down from the slowly moving bus was that the claimant missed the bus stop and requested the bus to be stopped and the bus slowed down near the RTO office to enable the claimant to get down from the bus. If the driver wanted the claimant to get down from the bus, he should have completely halted the bus or in the alternative, the claimant should have been told that the bus will be halted only in the next bus stop. Without doing so, if the bus is slowed down with an expectation that the claimant will get down, certainly negligence cannot be attributed against the claimant.

¶16In the light of the above discussion, the findings of the Tribunal attributing the entire negligence against the claimant is unsustainable and hence, the same is hereby set-aside. This Court holds that there was certainly negligence on the part of the bus driver who should have either completely brought the bus to a halt or should have stopped the bus only in the next stop. The driver not having adopted either of these alternatives and had slowed down the bus to enable the claimant to get down from the bus, should be made liable for the consequence.

¶17In the result, the award passed by Exclusive MACT, Tirupur in MCOP No.98 of 2016 dated 15.06.2022 is hereby set-aside. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal in order to enable the Tribunal to fix the compensation payable to the claimant. This process shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶18In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous appeal is allowed with the above directions. No costs.

29.07.2024 Speaking Judgment/Non-speaking Judgment Index :Yes/No rka N.ANAND VENKATESH.,J rka To, Exclusice MACT, Tirupur.

29.07.2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 29.07.2024 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2009 of 2023 Kannan ... Appellant Vs. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Tirupur, Regional Office, Kangayam Road, Tirupur ... Respondent Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award dated 15.06.2022 made in M.C.O.P.No.98 of 2016 on the file of Exclusice MACT, Tirupur. For Appellant : Mr.Ma.P.Thangavel For Respondents : M/s.Murali Vinoth *****