R.RAMASAMY Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the Judgement and Decree dated 10.10.2002 made in MCOP.No.346/1994 by the learned Subordinate Judge (MACT) Tirupattur, whereby the Tribunal dismissed the respective claim petitions filed by the owner of the lorry, claiming compensation for the damages caused to the lorry and the Respondent Transport Corporation, holding that both the drivers of the lorry and the bus belonging to the Respondent Transport Corporation were responsible equally in causing the accident.

(2.) The facts leading to filing of this appeal are that on 24.3.1994, at about 3.40 p.m., when the lorry owned by the Appellant/claimant was proceeding from Vaniyambadi towards Tiruppattur, the bus belonging to the Respondent Transport Corporation coming from Tiruppattur towards Vaniambadi, near Salai Nagar, collided with the lorry, due to which both the vehicles were damaged. According to the claimant, due to the impact, the front portion of the lorry was completely damaged and the Appellant had spent more than one lakh for repairing the lorry which was extensively damaged. Therefore, he claimed a compensation of one lakh for the damages caused to the lorry before the Tribunal.

(3.) According to the Appellant, the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. In the counter filed by the Respondent, it was denied that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus and it is stated that the bus was driven cautiously on the left side of the road and the lorry, which came in the opposite direction, was driven in a zig-zag manner rashly and negligently. It is further stated that on seeing the lorry driven in a zig-zag manner, the bud driver stopped the bus on the mud portion of the extreme left side of the road and in spite of such precaution, the lorry was driven to its right side and dashed against the right front portion of the bus causing extensive damages to the bus and injuries to some of the passengers. Therefore, according to the Respondent, negligence was on the part of the lorry driver.