Madras High Court
P.Arumugam vs Vijaya on 17 October, 2022
C.M.A.No.1607 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17.10.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
C.M.A.No.1607 of 2017
and C.M.P.No.8537 of 2017
P.Arumugam .. Appellant
-Vs.-
1. Vijaya
2. M.Palani .. Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, against the judgment and decree dated 25.04.2014 made in
M.C.O.P.No.188 of 2009 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
(Subordinate Court), Harur.
For Appellant : Mr.C.Munusamy
For Respondents : Served-No appearance
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1607 of 2017
JUDGMENT
The owner of the offending vehicle, who has been arrayed as first
respondent before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Subordinate
Judge), Harur in M.C.O.P.No.188 of 2009 is the appellant before this Court.
2. The respondents despite being served with notice have not
entered appearance either in person or through pleader.
3. The facts in brief necessary for disposing of the above appeal
are as follows:-
The petitioner has filed the above M.C.O.P.No.188 of 2009 on the file
of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge), Harur claiming
compensation of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in a
road accident on 03.10.2005. She would submit that she is working as an
agricultural coolie, earning a monthly income of Rs.5,000/- per month and
that she is aged about 28 years. It is her case that on 03.10.2005 at about
12.30 hrs, she and other coolie workers had boarded a tractor trailer, bearing
Registration No.TN-29-B-8847 to unload the crushed jelly. The tractor
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1607 of 2017
trailer was being driven by the first respondent and the owner is the second
respondent. The first respondent was driving the same in a rather rash and
negligent manner and when he had suddenly applied the brake, the trailer
had capsized on the right side, as a result of which, the petitioner and others
had sustained injuries. Therefore, she had filed the above claim petition.
4. The second respondent/owner of the tractor trailer had filed a
counter before the Tribunal, in which, he denied that the accident had
occurred only on account of the rash and negligent driving of the first
respondent. He would also take a plea that the petitioner was a gratuitous
passenger and not a coolie engaged by him. He would further submit that
on a humanitarian basis, the second respondent had paid a sum of
Rs.1,10,000/- for the medical treatment of the petitioner to her husband,
Venugopal. However, suppressing the receipt of the said sum, the petitioner
has filed the present claim.
5. The Tribunal below, by its Award dated 25.04.2014, held that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1607 of 2017
the accident had occurred only on account of the rash and negligent driving
of the first respondent and the Tribunal below had proceeded to award a
sum of Rs.3,66,500/- as compensation. Challenging the same, the second
respondent is before this Court.
6. As already stated, respondents herein though served have not
entered appearance. The learned counsel for the appellant/second respondent
would contend that when he had prepared a counter in the claim petition, no
documents were made available to the second respondent and during the
oral evidence, all the documents had been marked through a proof affidavit.
However, now on a perusal of the documents, particularly, Ex.P2-Wound
Certificate, the appellant has come to see that even according to the husband
of the petitioner, i.e.Venugopal, the injuries have been sustained only on
account of a wall collapse and not on account of a road accident. Under
Ex.P2, it has been stated as follows:-
“Injuries due to alleged wall collapse”
Likewise in Ex.P5, which is the discharge summary from the Department of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1607 of 2017
Plastic Re-constructive Surgery and Burns, St.John's Medical College
Hospital, Bangalore. Under the history, it has been stated as follows:-
“Alleged history of injury to right leg on 03.10.2005,
when a collapsed wall fell on leg right”.
The learned counsel would submit that in the light of the categoric
admission of the petitioner that the injury is not the result of the road
accident. The very Award that has been passed has to necessarily be set
aside.
7. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant
and perused the materials available on record.
8. The records would read as contended by the learned counsel for
the appellant. Therefore, it is very clear that the injuries have not been
sustained on account of a road accident and the claim has been made is a
fraudulent one. Therefore, the same has to necessarily be set aside.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1607 of 2017
appellant has already paid a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- to the petitioner and he
does not intend to seek any refund of the same.
10. Therefore, considering the above submission and taking into
account the fact that the injuries are not the result of the road accident, the
civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed and the Award passed by the Tribunal
is set aside. In case the appellant has deposited any amount to the credit of
M.C.O.P.No.188 of 2009 on the file of the Motor accident Claims Tribunal
(Sub Court), Harur, he shall be entitled to its refund. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
17.10.2022
srn
To
1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
The Special Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
High Court of Madras, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1607 of 2017
P.T.ASHA, J.,
srn
C.M.A.No.1607 of 2017
and
C.M.P.No.8537 of 2017
17.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
