BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22/12/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.MURGESEN CMA(MD) No.1179 of 2008 Karuppiah .. Appellant Vs. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Kumbakonam Division, Pudukottai District. .. Respondent Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award passed in MCOP No.31 of 2005 dated 10.01.2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Sub Court, Pudukottai. !For Appellant ... Mr.N.Balakrishnan ^For Respondent ... Mr.M.Prakash :JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the judgment and award
passed in MCOP No.31 of 2005 dated 10.01.2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal cum Sub Court, Pudukottai.
2. On the fateful day, i.e. on 23.12.2004, when the appellant / claimant
has attempted to alight from the bus bearing Registration No.TN-55-N-0189
belonging to the respondent / Transport Corporation, the driver of the bus,
without noticing the same, took the bus suddenly in a rash and negligent manner,
due to which, the claimant sustained injuries, including fracture. He claimed a
compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- before the Tribunal.
3. Before the Tribunal, P.W.1, P.W.2 and R.W.1 were examined and Ex.P1 to
P5 were marked. On consideration of the evidence on record, the Tribunal
dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the victim was under the
influence of alcohol.
4. The counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal ought to
have discussed the entire issue, but it dismissed the claim petition on the
preliminary issue.
5. It is true that R.W.1-the driver of the bus said that the victim was
under the influence of liquor. Ex.P2-Wound Certificate would show that there
was alcoholic smell on the claimant. It must be shown that the victim was under
the influence of liquor. Nothing is elicited from P.W.1-the claimant to show
that he was under the influence of liquor.
6. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that both
the parties must produce concrete evidence to show that the victim was under the
influence of liquor. There is no satisfactory evidence to show what is the
truth. Without satisfactory evidence, the Tribunal has dismissed the claim
petition on the ground that the victim was under the influence of liquor.
7. Therefore, this is a fit case to be remitted to the Tribunal.
Accordingly, this appeal is remitted to the Tribunal. Both the parties shall
produce concrete evidence to find out whether the victim was under the influence
of liquor or not, and the Tribunal shall dispose of the matter in accordance
with law.
8. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
km
To
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-
Sub Judge,
Pudukottai.