METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD , REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR PALLAVAN ILLAM Vs. R SELVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the respondent before the Tribunal viz., the Transport Corporation, against the judgment and decree dated 23.04.2014 passed in M.C.O.P.No.4808 of 2011 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

(2.) For convenience sake, the parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status before the Tribunal. The case of the Petitioners before the Tribunal as per their claim petition is that on 20.02.2011, when the deceased boarded the respondent corporation bus bearing Reg.No.TN-01-N-4218 along with his wife at Elaimmani Koil Bus stop, at Ennore Express Highways at about 6.30 hours, the driver of the respondent corporation bus applied sudden brake and in that impact, the deceased who was standing near the conductor seat was thrown out of the bus and suffered fatal injuries. The Petitioners claimed that the negligent driving of the driver of the bus alone is responsible for the accident. At the time of death, the deceased was aged 40 years and by working as Sewage cleaner at Thiruvottiyur Municipality, Chennai, he was getting monthly salary of Rs.15,000/-. The petitioners, who are the wife and daughter of the deceased were dependant on his income. Thus the petitioners claimed a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation from the respondent.

(3.) On the other hand, opposing the petition, by filing counter, the respondent Corporation contends that the driver was not responsible for causing the accident. According to the respondent, when the bus was approaching the bus-stop near Elaimman Koil Stop very slowly, a male passenger aged about 60 years attempted to get down from the bus and in that process, lost balance and fell down and suffered injuries. It was only due to the negligence on the part of the said person, the accident took place. The driver of the bus was not responsible and the FIR was registered against the deceased. The respondent also disputed the age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further contended that in any event, the deceased also contributed to the accident and as such, he should also be liable for the accident. As the claim of the petitioners is excessive, the respondent seeks dismissal of the Petition.