Madras High Court
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Ponnuvel on 26 August, 2021
C.M.A.No.65 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26.08.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN
C.M.A.No.65 of 2020
and
C.M.P.No.614 of 2020
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
No.7, B.K.Building,
Ramalinga Madalaya Street,
Gugai, Salem – 6. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Ponnuvel,
S/o.Muniya Gounder,
New Gandhi Nagar,
Amanikondalampatty,
Salem – 10
2.M/s.Kalaivani Agencies,
No.127, Krishnagiri Road,
Periyagaram Village & Post,
Tiruppatur Taluk,
Vellore District – 635 901 ... Respondents
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree made in
M.C.O.P.No.652 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
(Special Sub Court No.1) at Salem dated 30.08.2018.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.65 of 2020
For Appellant : Mr.A.Krishnamoorthy
For Respondents : Mr.Sivakumar (for R1)
R2 (exparte)
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the
Award made in MCOP.No.652 of 2016, dated 30.08.2018, on the file of the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / Special Sub Court No.1 at Salem.
2. The appellant / Insurance Company is the second respondent
in MCOP.No.652 of 2016, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal / Special Sub Court No.1 at Salem. The first respondent, who is the
claimant, has filed the said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as
compensation.
3. According to the first respondent, the driver of the Lorry
belonging to the second respondent insured with the appellant was driven by
its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Lorry
belonging to the first respondent, as a result of which, the 2nd Respondent
sustained multiple grievous injuries and fracture in left leg. The driver of the
second respondent was responsible for accident. The claim petition was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.65 of 2020
filed, claiming a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation.
4. The appellant filed counter statement and denied the manner
in which the accident took place as alleged by the first respondent. The first
respondent has driven the TVS Start City bearing Reg. No.TN 30 U 3931
without insurance policy, which is against the motor vehicles Act. The first
Respondent has not sustained any disability as alleged. The first Respondent
is bound to prove his age, occupation, income, nature of injuries, period of
treatment, medical expenses and the alleged disability with documentary and
other evidences. The first Respondent has not sustained any loss of earnings,
earning power, disability and the injuries have been exaggerated and the
quantum of compensation claimed by the first Respondent is also excessive.
5. The Tribunal took up the claim petition filed by the injured
person and considering the evidence let in passed an Award. The Tribunal
held that the driver of the Lorry belonging to the second respondent is
responsible for the accident and considering the claim of injured, awarded
various amounts on the facts the case. The Tribunal considering the
evidence of the first respondent and the documents, awarded a sum of
Rs.1,64,830/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by the first
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.65 of 2020
respondent.
6. Against the said Award, the appellant has filed the present appeal.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the
first respondent has not produced any document to show the alleged injuries
are sustained by him in the accident occurred on 06.12.2015. Two main
issues have been raised by the Appellant/Insurance Company. Firstly the
injury is a self inflated injury for which no compensation is liable to be paid.
Secondly, the hospital records and police records would justify that the said
injury sustained is a self inflated injury, that apart, there is a categorical
evidence which has been admitted by the party that lorry has not dashed
against the motor cycle, which caused the accident.
8. In this case RW4/Assistant Professor has stated that the first
Appellant/injured skit from the Motor cycle and that there is a breath smell of
alcohol. Of course, there is no breath test conducted to establish this version.
A case has been registered and final report has also been produced. In a
category of cases, wherein, it has been held that FIR may not be an ultimate
proof, however, it can be taken for the purpose of corroboration or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.65 of 2020
contradiction. In this case, medical records as well as the FIR would
corroborate the incident of accident and proved that it is a case of self inflated
injury. Though it has been stated that the lorry dashed against the motor
cycle, RW2 stated that, Pillion rider has deposed that lorry has not dashed
against the two wheeler. When there is a categorical evidence and that the
accident have taken place in the year 2015 and Ex.P.2 & 3 reveals that the 1 st
Respondent suffered 1)lacerated wound 3x0.5x0.5 cm left eyebrow,
2)abrasion 2x2 cm over left shoulder and 3)A diffue swelling over left knee.
The alleged fracture injury caused in the accident is a self inflated injury and
that the claimant is not entitled to any compensation. In view of the above,
the Award dated 30.08.2018, is liable to be set aside and accordingly, the
same is set aside.
9. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed by setting
the Award made in MCOP.No.652 of 2016, dated 30.08.2018, on the file of
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Special Sub Court No.1, Salem. No
costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
26.08.2021
dpq
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.65 of 2020
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
To
The learned Special Judge,
Sub Court No.1,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Salem.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.65 of 2020
S. VAIDYANATHAN, J.
dpq
C.M.A.No.65 of 2020
26.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
