Madras High Court
Shanmugasundaram vs P.Murugesan on 16 April, 2021
CMA(MD)No.1316 of 2011
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED 16.04.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM
C.M.A(MD)No.1316 of 2011
Shanmugasundaram .. Appellant
vs.
1.P.Murugesan
2.Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co., Ltd.,
through its Divisional Manager,
Aparna Tyers Near,
Porkudam Apartments opposite,
S.N.Colony,
Bye pass Road,
Madurai. ...Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act 1988 to set aside the order passed in MCOP No.27 of 2008
on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court),
Additional District Judge, Periyakulam, dated 29.09.2010.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Suresh Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan (for R2)
R-1 Dismissed.
1/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA(MD)No.1316 of 2011
JUDGMENT
Heard Mr.K.Sureshkumar, learned counsel for the appellant and
Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan, learned counsel for the second respondent
Insurance Company.
2.The present appeal has been filed by the claimant aggrieved over
the rejection of his claim petition by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Fast Track Court), Additional District Judge, Periyakulam, vide order
dated 29.09.2010.
3.This is case of injury. The claimant is said to have sustained
injury on 25.01.2008 when he was riding his bicycle near V.V.G.Store,
Theni, after hitting a motorcycle bearing registration No.TN-60-X-8061.
He sought compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- contending that the accident
occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the two wheeler.
4.The second respondent opposed the claim petition in the counter
stating that the said vehicle was not involved in the accident and it is a
false claim.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA(MD)No.1316 of 2011
5.The Tribunal taking note of the fact that the claimant himself has
stated before the Doctor at Ka.Vilakku Government Hospital that he was
hit by a vehicle bearing registration No.TN-59-NL-9700, but
subsequently, after lapse of 5 hours, the vehicle number TN-60-X-8061
was altered and implicated in this case. The Tribunal have found that the
vehicle number TN-59-L-9700 was given by the claimant when he was
conscious to the Medical Officer. That apart, the doctor was not
examined to show that the vehicle No.TN-59-L-9700 was wrongly
mentioned in the Accident Register . So, I find no illegality or irregularity
in the conclusion reached by the Tribunal. Hence, the order of the
Tribunal is liable to be confirmed.
6.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No
costs.
16.04.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
skn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA(MD)No.1316 of 2011
K.KALYANASUNDARAM.,J
skn
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Fast Track Court), Additional District Judge,
Periyakulam.
2.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
JUDGMENT MADE IN
C.M.A(MD)No.1316 of 2011
16.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
