Madras High Court
Samathan vs Chellam Chettiar on 17 February, 2021
C.M.A.(MD) No.1521 of 2010
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 17.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM
C.M.A.(MD) No.1521 of 2010
Samathan ... Appellant
-vs-
1.Chellam Chettiar
2.The United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Branch Office, 463, V.O.C.Road
Karaikudi, Sivagangai District ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the Judgment and Decree, dated 18.10.2000
in M.C.O.P.No.78 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate), Sivagangai.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Jegadeeswaran
For Respondents : No appearance for R1
Mr.J.S.Murali for R2
___________
Page 1 of 5
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.(MD) No.1521 of 2010
JUDGMENT
This civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the claimant
challenging the Judgment, dated 18.10.2000, passed in M.C.O.P.No.78 of
1999, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge-cum-
Chief Judicial Magistrate), Sivagangai, wherein the claim petition filed by the
appellant was dismissed.
2. The case of the claimant in brief is that on 11.11.1998, at 15.30
hours, the claimant was proceeding on Manamadurai – Elayankudi Main
Road. At that time, a Bus bearing registration No.TN63 Y0779 owned by the
first respondent and insured with the second respondent – Insurance
Company came in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the claimant.
In the accident, the claimant sustained injuries and immediately, he was
taken to Paramakudi Government Hospital, where he took treatment as
inpatient for more than a month. Alleging that the driver of the Bus was
responsible for the accident, he filed a claim petition claiming compensation of
Rs.1,00,000/-.
___________
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.(MD) No.1521 of 2010
3. The claim petition was resisted by the second respondent –
Insurance Company contending that the entire averments in the claim petition
are false and the claimant is not entitled for any compensation.
4. Though notice has been served on the first respondent and his
name has been printed in the cause list, none appeared on his behalf
5. Heard Mr.R.Jegadeeswaran, learned counsel for the appellant and
Mr.J.S.Murali, learned counsel for the second respondent – Insurance
Company and carefully perused the materials available on record.
6. During trial, the claimant produced a copy of First Information
Report (Ex.P1), wherein it is stated that when he was walking near
T.Pudukottai Bus Stop, he was hit by the offending Bus. In the Accident
Register, which was marked as Ex.P3, it is stated that when he was alighting
from a Bus at T.Pudukottai Bus Stop, he fell down and sustained injuries.
That apart, the claimant himself has admitted that he gave a Letter (Ex.R1)
stating that the accident occurred due to his negligence. Considering the
above evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimant made a
___________
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.(MD) No.1521 of 2010
false claim and hence, he is not entitled for compensation. I find no valid
ground to interfere with the conclusion reached by the Tribunal dismissing the
claim petition.
7. In fine, the civil miscellaneous appeal fails and it is dismissed. No
costs.
17.02.2021
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Note :
In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the
Judgment may be utilized for official
purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of
the Judgment that is presented is the
correct copy, shall be the responsibility of
the advocate / litigant concerned.
krk
To:
1.The Additional District Judge-cum-
Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Sivagangai
2.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
___________
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.(MD) No.1521 of 2010
K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.
krk
C.M.A.(MD) No.1521 of 2010
17.02.2021
___________
http://www.judis.nic.in
