R RAJAN Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has come forward with this writ petition challenging the award dated 12.04.2011 passed by the first respondent/labour Court in I.D. No. 1 of 2003.

(2.) THE petitioner joined as Driver in the second respondent/transport corporation on 04.05.1993. According to the petitioner, on 28.06.2002, while he was driving the transport corporation bus bearing Registration No. TN 27 N 1060 from Rasipuram to Salem at 10.15 am, when the bus was nearing Poimaankaradu, in order to give way to the oncoming lorry, the petitioner turned the bus towards the left side and at that time, according to the petitioner, the steering got locked and he immediately applied brake, with the result, he lost control, and the bus dashed against the parappet wall of a well situated near the road. Out of panic, the passengers in the bus attempted to get down from the bus from all the possibe exists, with the result, the bus fell into the well. In the said accident, 8 passengers died on the spot and about 20 passengers sustained injuries. It is the contention of the petitioner that the accident happened beyond his control and he cannot be made responsible for the said accident.

(3.) I have perused the materials on record. It is seen from the award dated 12.04.2011 of the labour court that the petitioner has not opted to lead any oral evidence. In the counter statement filed by the second respondent before the labour court, it is stated that the second respondent was willing to lead evidence and the petitioner has not chosen to avail the said procedure. The damage caused to the bus due to the accident was estimated at Rs.11 lakhs by the second respondent/corporation. It is also seen that due to the accident, 8 passengers died on the spot and 20 passengers sustained grievious injuries. A criminal case was also registered against the petitioner in Crime No. 586 of 2002 on the file of Mallur Police Station. It is also seen that Claim Petitions have been filed by the injured as well as the legal heirs of the deceased passengers against the transport corporation claiming compensation. It is also seen from the award passed by the labour court that a specific finding was given to the effect that the contention of the petitiioner that there was a mechanical defect in the bus at the time of accident has not been proved by the petitioner through oral or documentary evidence. Further, in the report filed by the Motor Vehicle Inspector, marked as Ex.R4 before the labour court, it is clearly stated that there was no mechanical defect in the bus at the time of accident. Even as per Ex.R6, Log Sheet of the Accident, no mechanical defect was mentioned by the petitioner. Further, the enquiry officer gave a clear finding under Ex.R16 that the fitness certificate for the vehicle was issued only on 25.06.2002 i.e., three days before the date of accident and therefore the petitioner cannot contend that there was a mechanical defect and shift the burden on the management. In motor accident cases, the burden is on the petitioner, who is pleading that he was not at fault.