METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD Vs. SENTHILKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. (This civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to set aside the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (V Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai in M.C.O.P.No,2529/2000 dated 02.05.2002.) In M.C.O.P.No,2529 of 2000, the following are alleged.

(2.) ON 26.03.1995 at about 14.45 hours this petitioner and one Ashok were travelling by Yamaha motorbike bearing Regn.No.TN-04 A-2486 from Guindy to Tambaram and near DCM Toyota show room, a bus belonging to the respondent Corporation bearing Regn.No.TML 1659 came from the same direction at a high speed, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, lost its control and hit the Yamaha motorbike, as a result of which the petitioner sustained grievous and multiple injuries over the body. Ashok was driving the motorbike and the petitioner was sitting as pillion rider. The said Ashok died in the accident. For the personal injuries sustained by this petitioner a sum of Rs.5,60,000/- is claimed as compensation. 2. In the counter filed by the respondent Transport Corporation, it is alleged that there was no rash or negligent driving by the driver of the respondent bus, when the bus was proceeding according to the traffic rules from Periyar Bridge to Tambaram. When the bus was going slowly on its proper side, the motorcyclist came in a negligent manner, hit against another motorcycle, fell down near the bus and thereby the accident took place. The petitioner was guilty of contributory negligence. The petition is bad for non-joinder of the owner of the motorcycle and its insurer. Age, occupation and monthly income of the petitioner, nature of injuries, period of treatment and place of treatment alleged in the petition are denied. The petitioner did not suffer any disability. It is not admitted that the motorcyclist was having a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. The amount claimed is excessive and unsustainable, hence the petition has to be dismissed.

(3.) THE Tribunal Judge has analysed the oral evidence on record and observed that remarkable inconsistencies are found between the oral testimonies of R.W.1 and R.W.2 and hence their evidence could not be believed. This court does not find any infirmity in the said observation. THE operative portions of the oral evidence of both the witnesses are contra to each other. While R.W.1 says that he heard the friction caused by the hit of the motorcycle on the body of the bus, R.W.2 stated that two motorcycles involved in the accident and the same took place due to the dashing of one motorbike with another. Hence the finding as regards fixing up of responsibility of causing accident as found by the Tribunal has to be confirmed and it is accordingly confirmed.