High Court of Madras
Case Law Search
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation v. Minor Nagarajan rep. by father and - C.R.P.(NPD)No.2148 of 2000  RD-TN 556 (5 August 2005)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AR.RAMALINGAM
C.R.P.(NPD)No.2148 of 2000
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
(Villupuram Division I) Ltd.,
rep. by its Managing Director,
Villupuram formerly known as
Thanthai Periyar Transport Corporation Petitioner -vs-
Minor Nagarajan rep. by father and
natural guardian Rajagopal Respondent Civil Revision Petition against the judgment and decree dated 9.12.1 999 in M.C.O.P.No.374 of 1995 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Chidambaram.
For petitioner : Mr.Rajnish Pathyil
For respondent : No appearance.
Aggrieved against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Chidambaram in M.C.O.P.No.374 of 1995 for Rs.3000/= with interest at the rate of 12 per annum from the date of petition, the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation( Villupuram Division I) Limited has filed this revision.
2. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, in the light of the available materials records, I am able to see from the judgment passed by the Sub Court, Chidambaram to the effect that the claimant viz., one minor Nagarajan through his father Rajagopal seems to have claimed compensation of Rs.10,000/= for the injuries said to have been sustained by him due to the accident occurred on 28.3.1995 (Cuddalore-Chidambaram road near Mullipallam) because of a dash between two transport buses bearing registration numbers TN 31 N 183 and TN 32 N 535 and that further FIR appears to to have been registered against the driver of the bus bearing registration No.TN32 N 535 as evidenced by Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 viz., M.V. Report and Ex.P3 rough sketch indicating the place of occurrence, etc., and that further the Tribunal seems to have awarded compensation of Rs.3 000/= on assumption or inference as if the claim petition could not be a false one.
3. Consequently, it is to be indicated that the Tribunal has miserably failed to consider the oral evidence of PW1 viz., father of the minor claimant as well as non production of any piece of proof showing the nature of injuries said to have been sustained by him like O.P. chit or any prescription or any doctor's certificate and also the question of fact whether actually the boy sustained injuries in the said accident and the fact whether the boy was actually travelling in the bus at the time of accident by producing any proof such as ticket purchased by him, etc. or by examination of any co-passenger, etc. In such circumstances, it is too much on the part of the Tribunal to award a sum of Rs.3000/= without any piece of proof showing the fact of travelling in the bus by the boy and sustaining injuries in the accident and getting treatment in any hospital or from any doctor for such injuries.
4. Consequently, I am of the view that inasmuch as the revision petitioner also happens to be a Government Corporation, cannot be burdened with such amount as if liable to be paid to the claimant. Accordingly, this revision deserves to be allowed and the same is allowed. The award passed by the Tribunal is set aside. No costs.
The Sub Court,
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.