None but witnesses can prove rash driving charge: HC
TNN | Jan 19, 2020, 04.51 AM IST
Chennai: Only eyewitnesses can prove charges of rash and negligent driving, without such a witness such charge cannot hold good, the Madras high court has said.
Justice K Ravichandrabaabu made the observation while dismissing an appeal moved by the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) against the order of a labour court dated November 12, 201,3 directing the corporation to pay Rs 2 lakh compensation to the kin of a driver who was wrongly terminated by the TNSTC.
G Gopal (now deceased), was working as a driver for the corporation’s Villupuram division. On February 14, 1999, a bus driven by Gopal met with an accident in which three people died. According to Gopal, the accident was not due to his negligence or rash driving, but due to the fact that the vehicle was not properly maintained. However, the management terminated Gopal from service. Aggrieved, Gopal moved the labour court challenging his dismissal, which directed the corporation to pay Rs 2 lakh as compensation to Gopal’s kin as no eyewitnesses were examined to substantiate the charges levelled against him. TNSTC moved the present appeal challenging the same.
Rejecting the appeal, Justice Ravichandrabaabu said: “The right persons to speak about the accident are the eyewitnesses.” No eyewitness was examined in this case, he pointed out, adding: “The labour court was right in concluding that the dismissal of the deceased is not just.”
TNN | Jan 19, 2020, 04.51 AM IST
Chennai: Only eyewitnesses can prove charges of rash and negligent driving, without such a witness such charge cannot hold good, the Madras high court has said.
Justice K Ravichandrabaabu made the observation while dismissing an appeal moved by the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) against the order of a labour court dated November 12, 201,3 directing the corporation to pay Rs 2 lakh compensation to the kin of a driver who was wrongly terminated by the TNSTC.
G Gopal (now deceased), was working as a driver for the corporation’s Villupuram division. On February 14, 1999, a bus driven by Gopal met with an accident in which three people died. According to Gopal, the accident was not due to his negligence or rash driving, but due to the fact that the vehicle was not properly maintained. However, the management terminated Gopal from service. Aggrieved, Gopal moved the labour court challenging his dismissal, which directed the corporation to pay Rs 2 lakh as compensation to Gopal’s kin as no eyewitnesses were examined to substantiate the charges levelled against him. TNSTC moved the present appeal challenging the same.
Rejecting the appeal, Justice Ravichandrabaabu said: “The right persons to speak about the accident are the eyewitnesses.” No eyewitness was examined in this case, he pointed out, adding: “The labour court was right in concluding that the dismissal of the deceased is not just.”
No comments:
Post a Comment