A.Udhayakumar vs K.Muniyan
2023 Latest Caselaw 14996 Mad

Madras High Court

A.Udhayakumar vs K.Muniyan on 27 November, 2023

Author: M.Dhandapani

Bench: M.Dhandapani

                                                                     1

                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                             DATED: 27.11.2023

                                                                 CORAM:

                                     THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

                                                     C.M.A.No.1772 of 2019

                     A.Udhayakumar                                                       .. Appellant
                                                                     Vs.
                     1. K.Muniyan

                     2. The Divisional Manager,
                     United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
                     No.16, First Floor, J.N. Street,
                     Puducherry-4.                                                      .. Respondents

                     Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
                     Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 07.10.2010 made
                     in MACT. OP.No.1183 of 2007 on the file of the III Additional District
                     Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Puducherry.

                                  For Appellant      :          Mr.Varadha Kamaraj
                                                                For M/s.T.S.Vijaya Raghavan

                                  For Respondents        :      Mr. C.Paranthaman R2
                                                                R1 No appearance

                                                              JUDGMENT

This appellant/claimant has come forward with this appeal against the

judgment and decree dated 07.10.2010 made in MACT. OP.No.1183 of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2007 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Motor Accidents

Claims Tribunal, Puducherry.

2.Brief fact which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are as

follows:-

On 04.07.2007 at about 6.00 pm. The appellant was travelling in his

two wheeler bearing registration No.PY 01 X 3939 in Anna Salai,

Puducherry, at that time, a rider of another motor cycle driven by the first

respondent which was insured with the second respondent bearing Reg.

No.PY 01 U 2013, in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the

petitioner and due to the said accident, the appellant sustained grievous

injuries. Thereby, the appellant/claimant has filed a claim Petition before the

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle

Act, claiming compensation of Rs.4,50,000/-.

3. Before the Tribunal, during trial, in order to prove the case, on the

side of the appellant, five witnesses were examined viz., PW1 to PW5 and

marked 12 documents viz., Exs.P1 to P12, On the side of the

respondent/Insurance company, no witness was examined and documents

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

was marked. The Tribunal, considering the pleadings, oral and documentary

evidence, rejected the claim petition. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant

has filed this appeal before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submitted that

though the accident had happened on 04.07.2007, however, immediately,

the appellant had lodged a police complaint before the law enforcing agency

belatedly. The appellant has presumed that he sustained only simple

injuries. Subsequently, pain was increased. Thereafter, he was admitted in

the hospital on 06.07.2007 as in patient and taken treatment and after

discharging from the hospital, he lodged a complaint on 17.07.2007. The

said facts has been established before the Tribunal and to that effect, he has

marked the wound certificate and disability certificate and the Tribunal,

without considering the fact, rejected the claim petition, which is un-

sustainable one.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/insurance

company submitted that according to the second respondent, no such accident

happened as alleged by the petitioner. The appellant has not proved the date, time

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

and place of the accident the accident. Before the Tribunal. Therefore, the Tribunal

has rejected the claim petition, and this Court may dismiss the appeal.

6. This Court gave its careful consideration to the submissions

advanced by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the

materials available on record.

7. On perusal of the award, it is seen that the accident had occurred on

04.07.2007 as alleged by the appellant. At the relevant point of time,

A.R.Copy is not available. Thereafter, the appellant has admitted in the

hospital. All the facts has established before the Tribunal.

8. On perusal of the witness of PW3, it is found that after the

accident, both the vehicle got damaged and that both the vehicles were sent

to police station immediately after the accident. Contrary to that on perusal

of the Motor Vehicle Inspection Report/Ex.P3, it is seen that the vehicle

owned by the appellant has not damaged in the accident. The first

respondent's vehicle was damaged in front side. The said fact has not been

properly established before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has elaborately

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

considered the issued and rightly rejected the claim petition.

9. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. No costs.

27.11.2023

Index : Yes Speaking Order : Yes rli

To

The III Additional District Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Puducherry.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

M.DHANDAPANI,J.

Rli

27.11.2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis