Madras High Court
Karthik vs Somasundaram on 1 September, 2020
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
C.M.A.No.2517 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01.09.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
C.M.A.No.2517 of 2019
Karthik .. Appellant
vs.
1.Somasundaram
2.The Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd.,
No.22-C, Siva Complex, II Floor,
Sarada College Main Road,
Salem – 636 016. .. Respondents
The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred under Section 173 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree in
MCOP.No.205 of 2014 dated 29.01.2019 on the file of the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal/Subordinate Judge Court, Tiruchengode.
For Appellant : Mr.T.S.Arthanareeswaran
For Respondents : R1 – Left
R2 – Mr.D.Bhaskaran
1/10
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2517 of 2019
JUDGMENT
The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal on hand is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 29.01.2019 passed in M.C.O.P.No.205 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Judge Court, Tiruchengode.
2. The claimant before the Tribunal is the appellant in the appeal and the appeal is preferred against the dismissal of the Claim Petition.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant mainly contended that on 22.11.2013 at 9.00 a.m., the appellant/claimant had driven his two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-34-S-1201, Honda Shine at Koothampalayam near Karumanoor Pirivu Road extremely left side of the road, at the same time in opposite direction, the vehicle bearing registration No.TN-38 Z-7499 (TATA 407 Turbo) came from North to South side and the driver of the above vehicle had driven the vehicle in a 2/10 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.2517 of 2019 rash and negligent manner and dashed against the appellant/claimant and due to the accident, the appellant/claimant sustained grievous injuries and fractures. The nature of injuries are both bone fractures in the right leg. He was admitted in Thirukumaran Hospital at Tiruchengode and he had taken treatment as inpatient from 22.11.2013 to 03.12.2013 (12 days) and during the period of treatment, the appellant underwent surgery, plate and screws were fixed. The appellant/claimant was aged about 22 years and he was working as a Computer Instructor and was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month. The appellant/claimant marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 and the Tribunal has committed an error in not considering all these documents and dismissed the Claim Petition. Ex.P2/MVI Report clearly shows that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver. This aspect was not considered by the Tribunal. The disability of 10% given by the Medical Board was also not considered. Therefore, the judgment and decree of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent / 3/10 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.2517 of 2019 Oriental Insurance Company Limited strenuously opposed the contentions by stating that it is a false claim petition and the Tribunal has elaborately discussed the factual aspects with reference to the documents and evidences and arrived a categorical conclusion that it is a false case, based on which, the Claim Petition is filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent / Insurance company is of an opinion that the findings of the Tribunal are categorical with reference to the depositions of witnesses as well as the documents. The manner, in which, the accident was described by the claimant itself is not corroborating with the evidences produced as well as depositions of witnesses before the Tribunal. This being the factum, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances as well as the grounds raised in the appeal, it is sufficient that the findings of the Tribunal are read 4/10 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.2517 of 2019 with reference to the documents. The Tribunal elaborately considered the depositions of witnesses as well as the final charge sheet filed by the Police in this case. The exact findings of the Tribunal is extracted hereunder:
@11/ k/rh/1 Mf tprhhpf;fg;gl;l fhh;j;jpf; vd;gthpd; FWf;F tprhuizia vjph;kDjhuh; jug;g[ thjj;jpd; nghJ Rl;of;fhl;lg;gl;lJ/ mjid ghprPyiz bra;a[k; nghJ.
“@tpgj;J rkaj;jpy; ehd; igf; Xl;o brd;nwd;/ vd; kPJ blk;ngh thfdk; nkhjpaJ/ bt';fnlc&; vd;gth; ,e;j tpgj;J rk;ge;jkhf g[fhh; bfhLj;jhh;/ me;j g[fhhpy; gpiH cs;sjhf fUjp nghyPrhh; Mh;rpv!;/18?2013 5/2/2013y; Fw;wg;gj;jphpifia epuhfhpj;Jtpl;lhh;fs; vd;why; Mkhk;/@ vd;W rhl;rpakspj;Js;sij vjph;kDjhuh; jug;gpy; Rl;of;fhl;lg;gl;lJ/ mnjg;nghd;W vkrhM/3 Mf FwpaPL bra;ag;gl;Ls;s ,Wjp mwpf;ifapy;.
@,e;j tHf;fpy; vdJ tprhuizapYk;. rhl;rpfspd; rhl;rpaj;jpy; ,Ue;Jk; 22/11/2013 njjp fUf;fd;fhL fe;jrhkpapd; kfd; bt';fnlc&; vd;gth; jdJ mz;zd; fhh;j;jpf; vd;gtUld; jpUr;br';nfhL nghf ntz;o jdJ ,U rf;fu thfdk; ovd;/34?v!;?1201 vd;w tz;oapy; thjpahdth; gpd;g[wk; mkh;eJ ; k; mtuJ mz;zd; fhh;jj ; pf;
tz;oia Xl;of;bfhz;L Tj;jk;ghsak; ? fUkD}h; nuhoy;
fUkD}h; khug;gf;fft[zl
; h; njhl;lk; mUnf bjw;nf
,Ue;J nkw;F nehf;fp mjpf ntfkhft[k;.
5/10
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.2517 of 2019
m$hf;fpuijahft[k; Xl;og;ngha; vjpnu te;j blk;ngh
ovd;/38,rl;?7499 d; tyJ Kd;g[wk; nkhjpajpy;
blk;nghtpd; tyJ Kd;gf;fk; ,Ue;j bcwl;iyl; nrjk;
Mfpa[k;. ,UtUk; mogl;L fPnH tpGe;jjpy; fhh;j;jpf;
vd;gtUf;F tyJ fhy; vYk;g[ Kwpt[ Vw;gl;L
jpUr;br';nfhL jdpahh; kUj;Jtkidapy; rpfpr;ir bgw;W tUtJ cz;ik vdt[k;. ,r;rk;gtk; rhl;rp/2 fhh;jj ; pf;fpd;
ftdf;FiwthYk;. m$hf;fpuijahYk; Vw;gl;lnj jtpu blk;nghtpd; oiutuhy; tpgj;J Vw;gl;lit my;y vdj; bjspthf bjhpa tUtjhy; ,t;tHf;if @cz;ikf;F g[wk;ghd@ tHf;fhf ghtpj;J thjpf;F Mh;/rp/v!;/22?2013 ehs; 5/12/2013d; go rhh;t[ bra;Jk; tHf;fpd; nky;eltof;if iftplg;gLfpwJ/@ vdf; fhty; cjtp Ma;thsh; Fw;w ,Wjp mwpf;if jhf;fy; bra;Js;shh;/ vdnt. nkw;brhd;d ,Wjpawpf;ifapd; go fhty;Jiwapdh; jhf;fy; bra;j nkw;brhd;d ,Wjp mwpf;ifahdJ Kiwahd tprhuizg;go eilbgwtpy;iy vd;gjhfnth my;yJ kDjhuhpd; ftdf;Fiwthy; ,e;j tpgj;J eilbgwtpy;iy vd Kfhe;jpuk; bfhs;Sk; mstpw;nfh chpa rhl;rpfis kDjhuh; Kd;dpiyg;gLj;jpa[ss ; huh> vd;gJ ,e;j tHf;fpy;
Th;eJ ; ftdpf;fg;gl ntz;oaJ MFk;/ 12/ ,e;j tHf;fpy; ,ju jdp egh; rhl;rpfs; K:yk;
ahbjhU rhl;rpaKk; kDjhuuhy;
Kd;dpiyg;gLj;jg;gltpy;iy/ rk;gtk; eilbgw;w ,lk; xU 6/10 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.2517 of 2019 gpujhd rhiyahft[k;. rk;gtk; ele;j neuk; fhiy Rkhh; 9/00 kzpahf ,Uf;Fk; epiyapYk;. ,ju jdp egh; rhl;rpfis tprhhpg;gjd; thapyhf kDjhuh; ,e;j tHf;F tpgj;jpw;F fhuzk; my;y vd;gija[k;. ntd; Xl;Leh; jhd; fhuzk; vd;gija[k; kDjhuh; jhd; epU:gzk; bra;a ntz;Lk;/ Mdhy; kDjhuh; jdJ rhl;rpak; kw;Wk; Mtzk; thapyhf mt;thW epU:gzk; bra;atpy;iy/ ,e;j R{H;epiyapy; tpgj;jpw;F kDjhuhpd; mjpntfKk;. Ftdf;Fiwt[k;jhd; fhuzk; vd Kot[ bra;J 1tJ gpur;rpidf;F tpil fhzg;gLfpwJ/@
7. The findings of the Tribunal reveals that the appellant/claimant filed the Claim Petition mainly on the ground that he had driven the vehicle, which met with an accident. However, the evidences reveal that the appellant/claimant was a Pillion rider and he was not the driver of the vehicle. Therefore, the appellant/claimant has not established the basic facts regarding the accident and therefore, the Tribunal arrived a conclusion that the claim is false and accordingly, dismissed the Claim Petition.
8. This Court is of the considered opinion that any Claim Petition 7/10 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.2517 of 2019 under the Motor Vehicles Act must be filed with true facts. The facts must be established and proved beyond doubt by the claimant before the Court concerned. In other words, a person, who is approaching the Court of Law / Tribunal, must establish his case at the first instance, then alone, question of considering the compensation would arise. When the claimant is unable to establish his case at the first instance, then the Tribunal would be right in rejecting the claim petition.
9. In the present case, the case of the appellant/claimant is that he had driven the vehicle, which met with an accident and during the trial, the Tribunal found that his case is false and he was a Pillion rider even as per the final charge sheet filed by the Police. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no reason to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal as actually the appellant / claimant has not established his case set out in the Claim Petition at the first instance. 8/10 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.2517 of 2019
10. Thus, the judgment and decree dated 29.01.2019 passed in M.C.O.P.No.205 of 2014 stands confirmed and consequently, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in C.M.A.No.2517 of 2019 is dismissed. No costs.
01.09.2020 Index : Yes Internet: Yes Speaking Order Kak To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Judge Court, Tiruchengode.
2.The Section Officer, V.R Section, High Court, Madras.
9/10 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.2517 of 2019 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Kak CMA No.2517 of 2019 01.09.2020 10/10 http://www.judis.nic.in