Madras High Court
B.Ramamoorthy vs Akbar on 22 July, 2021
C.M.A. No.3201 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 22.07.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.KANNAMMAL
C.M.A. No.3201 of 2019
B.Ramamoorthy ...Appellant
Versus
1. Akbar
2. M/s.United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
No.134, Sillingi Buildings,
Greams Road,
Chennai 6. ...Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 against the decree and judgment dated 19.09.2018 made in
MCOP.No.1741 of 2016 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/II
Small Causes Court, Chennai.
For appellant : Mr.K.Varadha Kamaraj
For respondents
for R2 : Mr.M.J.Vijayaraghavan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/8
C.M.A. No.3201 of 2019
JUDGMENT
The appeal is heard through video conferencing.
2. Challenging the order dated 19.09.2018 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal/II Small Causes Court, Chennai in MCOP.No.1741
of 2016, the present appeal has been filed by the claimant.
3. It is the case of the appellant/claimant that on 11.03.2010 at about
11.45 hours, he was travelling in a Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.TN-
22-BW-5341 as a pillion rider and one Akbar/first respondent drove the said
Motor Cycle on the Thuraipakkam to Medavakkam Road. While they were
going in front of the Panchayat Office on Eri Kari Road, Perumbakkam, the
driver drove the said Motor Cycle in a rash and negligent manner and suddenly
applied brake, as a result of which, the claimant was thrown out of the vehicle
and he sustained fracture on the right ankle, injuries on the hands and legs,
head and face and multiple external and internal injuries all over the body.
4. It is the further case of the claimant that he was working as a
Maintenance Engineer at Mayajaal and earning a sum of Rs.28,000/- per
month. Due to the accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and hence,
he made a claim for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A. No.3201 of 2019
5. The said claim petition was resisted by the second
respondent/Insurance Company by filing a detailed counter statement denying
the manner of accident as projected by the claimants in the claim petition.
They also denied the age, occupation and income of the claimant. Thus, they
sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
6. In order to prove the claim before the Tribunal, the claimant
examined himself as PW1, besides examining one Murugan as PW2 and
marked Exs.P1 to P11. On the side of the Insurance Company, neither oral nor
documentary evidence was adduced.
7. The Tribunal, after analysing the entire evidence, came to the
conclusion that this is not a case of accident and it is only an accidental fall,
which the claimant converted into a claim petition. Hence, the claimant is not
entitled for any compensation. Further, the second respondent/Insurance
Company is liable to recover the cost of proceedings from the claimant.
Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A. No.3201 of 2019
8. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that
the said Akbar drove the Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.TN-22-BW-
5341 in a rash and negligent manner and suddenly applied brake, as a result of
which, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and the FIR also been
registered against the said Akbar. Further, the Tribunal by relying on Ex.P2
A.R.Copy and Ex.P4 O.P. Record came to the conclusion that the claimant is
not a pillion rider. But those exhibits were not marked by the authenticated
persons and they were also not examined. Hence, those exhibits cannot be
relied upon. Therefore, the learned counsel seeks to allow the claim petition.
9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company made his
submissions supporting the award passed by the Tribunal.
10. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
11. Though FIR has been registered against Akbar, we cannot come to
the conclusion that he is the driver of the Motor Cycle. Since FIR is not an
encyclopedia, it is only a primary piece of document to show the cause of the
accident and it need not contain the entire facts.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A. No.3201 of 2019
12. Further, the claimant had given various timings for the said accident.
In Ex.P1, FIR, it was stated that the occurrence was said to have taken place at
11.00 clock, whereas in the claim petition, it has been mentioned 1.45 hours.
In Ex.P2 AR Copy, the time of occurrence was stated as 11.15 p.m. and in
Ex.P4 O.P. Record of Chettinadu Hospital, the occurrence time was mentioned
as 11.30 p.m. The above facts shows that the claimant had given various
timings at different places with regard to the time of occurrence.
13. In Ex.P2 A.R.Copy, it is noted as “Alleged H/O RTA riding on a
bike” and in the Ex.P4, O.P. Record it is noted as “...... alleges H/O RTA skid
and fall from bike near Perumbakkam at around 11.30 p.m. referred from
Global Hospital”. The same were recorded immediately after the alleged
accident, and from that it is clear that the claimant was not a pillion rider, but
he was the rider of the bike. Those exhibits were not disputed by the claimant.
The claimant has accepted it and has relied upon them and therefore, he cannot
deny or dispute the contents of those documents now. Thus, the Tribunal has
rightly rejected the contention of the claimant.
14. Further, the claimant claimed that his friend/ first respondent herein
was riding the said vehicle and he was sitting on the back seat when the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A. No.3201 of 2019
accident occurred. If so, then the first respondent also should have sustained
injuries. If he had not sustained injury, he would have admitted the claimant in
the Hospital. However, the claimant's friend one Suresh admitted the claimant
in the Hospital.
15. Further, the claim petition was also filed in the year 2016 for the
accident that had occurred in the year 2010, i.e., after six years from the date
of accident and no proper reason was given for such delay in filing the claim
petition.
16. In the afore stated circumstances, this Court finds that the Tribunal
has passed a well-justified award and the same does not require any
interference by this Court. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is
dismissed and the award under challenge is confirmed. No costs.
22.07.2021
Speaking Order : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
pvs
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A. No.3201 of 2019
To
1. The II Small Causes Court, Chennai/
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
2. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A. No.3201 of 2019
S.KANNAMMAL, J.
pvs
C.M.A. No.3201 of 2019
22.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
