01Facts
The claimant alleged that on 6 February 2020, while cycling along the Cuddalore–Vridhachalam Main Road, he was struck by a TNSTC bus driven rashly and negligently.
p. 2The Corporation denied liability, asserting that the claimant suddenly crossed the road and that the bus driver had acted carefully.
pp. 2–3The Tribunal found the bus driver responsible for 90% of the negligence and attributed 10% contributory negligence to the claimant, relying on an Accident Register entry recording that his breath smelled of alcohol. It awarded ₹1,46,300 after that deduction.
pp. 3–4The Corporation appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, challenging the apportionment of negligence; it did not dispute the quantum of compensation.
pp. 1, 4–502Issues
i.Whether the Tribunal’s finding that the bus driver was 90% responsible for the accident, with 10% contributory negligence attributed to the claimant, required interference.
pp. 4–6ii.Whether the Accident Register entry that the claimant’s breath smelled of alcohol justified attributing 50% contributory negligence to him, as the Corporation contended.
p. 503Law Applied
The appeal was brought under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
p. 1The Court applied the principles of negligence and contributory negligence in assessing responsibility for the accident.
p. 6It considered the parties’ evidence, including the Corporation’s failure to call the bus driver or another independent witness to support its account, and the Accident Register entry as evidence relevant to the claimant’s conduct.
p. 6Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173
04Reasoning
The Corporation’s account—that the claimant suddenly crossed the road and caused the collision—was unsupported by testimony from the bus driver or any independent witness. The Court therefore upheld the Tribunal’s finding that the bus driver’s rash and negligent driving caused the accident.
p. 6However, the Accident Register recorded that the claimant’s breath smelled of alcohol. The Court accepted the Tribunal’s reliance on that entry in attributing 10% contributory negligence to the claimant, and found no basis to increase that share to 50% or otherwise alter the apportionment.
p. 6As the compensation amount was not challenged, the Court did not reconsider it.
p. 505Holding
The Court held that the Tribunal’s apportionment—90% negligence to the Corporation and 10% contributory negligence to the claimant—did not warrant interference.
p. 6It dismissed the appeal, confirmed the Tribunal’s award of ₹1,46,300, made no order as to costs, and closed the connected miscellaneous petition.
p. 7Original Court PDF
The Managing DirectorvsArasan S/o Veerappan
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
