CMA(MD)/1169/2024 of The General Manager Vs Rajeswari on 2 November 2026

JUDGMENT

The Transport Corporation, is the sole respondent in M.C.O.P. No. 202 of 2021 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Subordinate Judge, Manapparai, has filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in C.M.A.(MD).No.1169 of 2024, challenging the award dated 17.08.2023 passed in the said claim petition.

2. Facts of the case:

2.1. The claimants, who are the dependants of the deceased Kandhasamy, filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- with interest. According to them, on 17.03.2021, the deceased was travelling in the appellant Transport Corporation bus bearing Registration No. TN-45-N-3264 on the Trichy–Manapparai Road. When the bus stopped at the Maravanur bus stop, the driver, without waiting for the deceased to alight from the bus, negligently moved the vehicle. As a result, the deceased fell down and sustained a head injury, which ultimately led to his death in the hospital.

2.2. The appellant Transport Corporation resisted the claim petition by disputing the manner of the accident and denying negligence on the part of the bus driver. According to the Transport Corporation, the deceased attempted to alight from the bus before it reached the bus stop

and fell down in the process. It was therefore contended that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the deceased and that the Transport Corporation was not liable to pay compensation.

2.3. Before the Tribunal, the claimants examined P.W.1 and P.W.2 and marked Exs.P1 to P12. On the side of the appellant Transport Corporation, the bus driver and conductor were examined as R.W.1 and R.W.2.

3. Findings of the Tribunal:

3.1. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal fixed negligence on the part of the bus driver and awarded compensation of Rs.15,32,500/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition under following heads:- Sl.No. Heads Amount (in Rs.)

Loss of Income 14,62,500/-

Loss of Consortium 40,000/-

Loss of Estate 15,000/-

Funeral Expenses 15,000/- Total awarded amount Rs.15,32,500/-

3.2. Challenging the said award, the learned counsel for the appellant Transport Corporation submitted that the Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the evidence of R.W.1 and R.W.2, who had stated

that the deceased attempted to alight from the bus before it reached the bus stop.

4. It was contended that the deceased himself was responsible for the accident and that the Tribunal ought to have fixed atleast a part of the negligence on him.

5. Submission of the learned counsel appearing for the claimants/respondents:

5.1. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that the evidence of P.W.2, the son of the deceased and an eyewitness to the occurrence, was clear, cogent and trustworthy. It was further submitted that, although the police had filed a report dropping further action, such a report would not, by itself, discredit the eyewitness account or conclude the issue of negligence before the Tribunal. The learned counsel therefore sought dismissal of the appeal.

6. This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.

7. The principal question that arises for consideration is,

(i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in fixing the total negligence on the driver of the appellant Transport Corporation bus?

8. Discussion and Findings:

8.1. The case of the claimants is that the deceased was in the process of alighting from the bus when the driver moved the vehicle without ensuring that the passenger had safely got down. On the other hand, the appellant Corporation contends that the deceased attempted to alight before the bus reached the designated bus stop and thereby met with the accident.

8.2. In considering these rival versions, the evidence of P.W.2 assumes significance. P.W.2 is the son of the deceased, and his relationship with the deceased does not, by itself, render his testimony unreliable. The material question is whether his presence at the scene was probable and whether his evidence withstands scrutiny. The evidence on record indicates that the deceased belonged to the locality and that P.W.2 had a plausible reason to be present at the bus stop to receive his father. His presence at the place of occurrence is therefore not inherently improbable.

8.3. On a careful consideration of the testimony of P.W.2, this Court finds no sufficient reason to reject his account of the occurrence. His evidence supports the claimants’ case that the bus was moved before the deceased had safely alighted. The evidence of R.W.1 and R.W.2, being that of the driver and conductor of the bus, must also be assessed in

the light of the surrounding circumstances and the other evidence on record. Their version, by itself, does not establish that the deceased was solely responsible for the accident.

8.4. The movement of a public transport bus while a passenger is in the process of alighting calls for particular care and coordination between the driver and the conductor. The driver must ensure that the passenger has safely alighted before moving the vehicle, while the conductor must assist in ensuring the safe boarding and alighting of passengers. A failure to exercise such care may constitute negligence on the part of the transport crew.

8.5. In this regard, the learned counsel for the claimants relied upon a decision in the case of Pallavan Transport Corporation Ltd. vs. M. Jagannathan reported in 2001 ACJ 5. The principle relied upon is that the driver and conductor of a public transport vehicle are expected to coordinate with each other to ensure the safety of passengers. In the absence of such coordination, where a passenger suffers injury while alighting, the conduct of the transport crew must be examined to determine who is responsible for the accident.

8.6. Applying the above principle to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the evidence of P.W.2 is credible and that the appellant Transport Corporation has not established a sufficient basis to

disturb the Tribunal’s finding on negligence. The mere fact that a police report was filed dropping further action does not displace the Tribunal’s duty to independently assess the evidence adduced before it. The Tribunal has considered the evidence on record and arrived at a conclusion supported by the testimony of the eyewitness.

8.7. In the absence of any compelling material demonstrating an error in the appreciation of evidence, this Court finds no justification to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal fixing negligence on the driver of the appellant Transport Corporation bus. The contention that negligence should also be attributed to the deceased is therefore rejected.

9. Result:

9.1. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed.

9.2. The award dated 17.08.2023 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Subordinate Judge, Manapparai, in M.C.O.P. No. 202 of 2021 is hereby confirmed.

9.3. The appellant Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the entire award amount, together with accrued interest and costs, after giving credit to any amount already deposited, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

9.4. Upon such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the

amount apportioned to them in accordance with the award of the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 02.11.2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No AKM To

1. The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/The Learned Subordinate Judge, Manapparai.

2. The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN J. AKM CMA(MD) No. 1169 of 2024 AND CMP(MD) No. 12271 of 2024 02.11.2026