THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.MATHIVANAN
CMA NO.2865 OF 2016 AND CMP NO.20733 OF 2016 The Managing Director Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Division – I Ltd., Vazhudareddy, Villupuram. .. Appellant
Vs.
1. Arokiyasagayaselvi
2. Minor Arunjaitly
3. Minor Joyprincy
4. Anthoniyammal .. Respondents PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and decree dated 22.02.2016 made in M.C.O.P.No.03 of 2015 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore at Vridhachalam).
For Appellant : Mr.Murali for Mr.S.Sairaman J U D G M E N T (Order of the Court was made by RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.)
1. This is an appeal filed against the order, dated 22.02.2016, whereby, the respondents have been awarded the compensation equivalent to a sum of Rs.16,46,000/-, with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of petition, till the date of realisation of compensation.
2. Counsel for the appellant seeks to challenge the impugned order on a singlular ground, which is, that the deseased at the time of the accident, did not possess a valid driving licence.
3. A perusal of the record would show that the accident occurred on 24.12.2014, at 11.45 hours, when the deceased Yacop was proceeding on his motor cycle, towards Parur Village from Vridhachalam. The accident occurred when Yacop reached VET Higher Secondary School. The record further shows that the motor cycle, in which, Yacop was riding collided with the bus owned by the appellant, bearing Registration No.TN32-N-2182.
3.1. The factum of collison and the resultant death of Yacop is not disputed before us.
4. We have examined both the counter affidavit filed by the appellant before the Tribunal and the grounds of appeal filed before us. Nowhere has the appellant taken the ground that the deceased Yacop did not possess a valid licence. As a matter of fact, the issues framed by the Tribunal are also demostrative of the fact that parties were not at lis qua this specific issue.
4.1. Therefore, the submission made in this behalf by the counsel for the appellant cannot be sustained. Even othewise, we find no error in the impugned order.
5. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
(R.S.A., J.) (T.M., J.) 05.01.2017
TK To The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III Additional District and Sessions Judge Cuddalore at Vridhachalam) RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.
AND T. MATHIVANAN, J.
TK CMA NO.2865 OF 2016 05.01.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in