Madras High Court
Alagarsamy (Died) vs Arunachalam Chettiar on 6 June, 2023
C.M.A(MD)No.1779 of 2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 06.06.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
C.M.A(MD)No.1779 of 2013
Alagarsamy (Died) ... Appellant/Claimant
2.Chitra
3.Geetha
4.Savadammal ... Proposed appellants
(Appellants 2 to 4 are brought on record as legal heirs of the
deceased sole appellant vide Court order, dated 25.04.2023
made in C.M.P(MD)Nos.4385 & 1810 of 2023 &
C.M.P(MD)SR.No.25002 of 2023)
Vs.
1.Arunachalam Chettiar
2.The Divisional Manager,
National Insurance Company Limited,
Rajapalayam. ... Respondents/Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of
Motor Vehicles Act, against the award, dated 21.12.2009 made in
M.C.O.P.No.494 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul and praying to set aside the
same.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Pugalendhi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
For R2 : M/s.P.Malini
1/8
C.M.A(MD)No.1779 of 2013
JUDGMENT
The present appeal has been filed by the claimant challenging the
dismissal of the claim petition by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Dindigul in M.C.O.P.No.494 of 2005.
2. According to the injured claimant, while he was a pillion rider
in a two wheeler that was driven by his brother on 04.09.2005. A
Mahindra van coming from the opposite direction had dashed behind the
two wheeler and he sustained grievous injuries in the said accident.
3. The claimant has further contended that he originally got
treatment from Sugam hospital. But later, he was admitted to Graham
hospital on 11.09.2005. He had lodged an F.I.R on 12.09.2005.
According to the claimant, he had sustained fracture in both bones in the
left leg. Therefore, he prayed for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as
compensation.
4. The insurance company of the Mahindra van had filed a counter
contending that the petitioner has to establish the fact that the accident
has occurred on 04.09.2005 at about 02.30 p.m. The petitioner has also
not explained the delay in lodging an F.I.R after a period of 7 days. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.1779 of 2013
insurance company has also questioned the validity of the insurance
policy and the quantum of compensation as prayed for.
5. The tribunal after considering the oral and documentary
evidence, arrived at a finding that there are no medical records to
establish that the claimant has sustained grievous injuries in an accident
that has taken place on 04.09.2005. In fact, Exhibit P.5 indicates that the
claimant got admitted to a clinic only on 11.09.2005 and he was
discharged on 13.09.2005. Exhibit P.6 indicates that the claimant has
purchased some medicines in October and December 2005. The tribunal
further found that it cannot rely upon the criminal Court records in which
the driver of the offending vehicle had pleaded guilty and paid fine. The
tribunal had dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the claimant
had not established that an accident has taken place on 04.09.2005 and
the injury sustained by him are related to the said accident. The said
order is under challenge in the present appeal.
6. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant,
the claimant was a pillion rider and he had sustained injuries due to an
accident on 04.09.2005 which was caused due to the rash and negligent
driving on the part of the driver of a Mahindra van. He further contended
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
that the claimant has produced Exhibit P.1/F.I.R, Exhibit P.2/wound
C.M.A(MD)No.1779 of 2013
certificate and Exhibit P.4/judgment of the criminal Court. The learned
counsel appearing for the appellant further relied upon Exhibits P.5 and
P.6/medical bills. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant also
relied upon Exhibit P.8/wound certificate and P.9/x-ray to indicate that
he has sustained grievous injuries and he has also taken treatment. When
all these documents are placed before the Court, the tribunal ought to
have accepted the said documents and allowed the claim petition.
However, the tribunal has erroneously dismissed the claim petition on
the ground that the claimant has not established the date and manner of
accident as claimed in the claim petition. Hence, he prayed for allowing
the appeal.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent had
contended that though the claimant has pleaded that the accident has
taken place on 04.09.2005, there are no medical records whatsoever till
11.09.2005. In fact, if the claimant had sustained grievous injuries, like
fracture in both the legs, he would have been admitted to a hospital or at
least some medical bills could have been produced relating to the period
between 04.09.2005 to 11.09.2005. The claimant has also not explained
the delay in registering F.I.R. Therefore, when the claimant has
miserably failed to plead and prove the date and manner of accident, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
tribunal was right in dismissing the claim petition.
C.M.A(MD)No.1779 of 2013
8. I have carefully considered the submissions made on either side
and perused the records.
9. It is the specific case of the claimant that as a pillion rider, he
sustained grievous injuries in an accident at about 02.30 p.m on
04.09.2005. All the medical records produced on the side of the claimant
start only from 11.09.2005. Even in those medical records, there are no
reference about a road traffic accident on 04.09.2005. The claimant has
not even produced single medical bill for the period between 04.09.2005
and 11.09.2005. The F.I.R has also been lodged after the claimant was
admitted to the clinic on 11.09.2005.
10. A perusal of Exhibit P.5 indicates that he had consulted a
clinic on 11.09.2005 and he was discharged on 13.09.2005 and Exhibit
P.13 is a set of medical bills which are after 11.09.2005 till 27.12.2006.
A perusal of Exhibit P.6 indicates that the medical bills are relating to
October and December 2005. A perusal of Exhibit P.2/wound certificate
indicates that the claimant has sustained grievous injury to the extent of
fracture in both the legs. The claimant has relied upon a disability
certificate said to have been issued on 22.10.2008 and an X-ray on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
said date. Exhibits P.8 and P.9 are 3 years after the filing of the claim
C.M.A(MD)No.1779 of 2013
petition. This Court is of the considered opinion that only for the purpose
of issuance of disability certificate, these x-rays have been taken in
October 2008.
11. The case of the claimant that two wheeler was driven by his
brother coupled with the fact that the claimant has not produced any
medical records from 04.09.2005 to 11.09.2005 create doubt in the mind
of the Court with regard to the date and manner of the accident and the
involvement of the Mahindra van in the said accident. Therefore, the
tribunal was right in arriving at a finding that the claimant has not
established the manner of accident and the involvement of the Mahindra
van. This Court does not find any merits in the appeal.
12. Hence, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed. No
costs.
06.06.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
gbg
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.1779 of 2013
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Dindigul.
2.The Section Officer,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.1779 of 2013
R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.
gbg
Judgment made in
C.M.A(MD)No.1779 of 2013
06.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
