Madras High Court
N.Shainsha vs C.Johnson David on 12 February, 2025
CMA.No.371 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated :12.02.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
CMA No.371 of 2025
N.Shainsha ... appellant
Vs.
1. C.Johnson David
2.Reliance General Insurance Company Limited
No.6, Haddows Road, Legal Department
6th floor, Reliance House, Nungambakkam
Chennai-600 001 ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act 1988, to allow this appeal and pleased to allow the claim
in MCOP.No.59 of 2016 dated 09.01.2023 on the file of Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Sub-Ordinate Judge), Tiruttani.
For appellant : Mr.K.Varadha Kamaraj
For Respondents : M/s.R.Sree Vidhya for R2
R1- Notice-Dispensed with
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.371 of 2025
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim petition filed by him, the
appellant/ claimant has filed this civil miscellaneous appeal.
2. According to the appellant, on 11.05.2015, when he was
traveling in a two wheeler driven by his friend Ilshath as a pillion rider,
a share auto bearing registration number TN-05-R-5049 dashed against
the two-wheeler and as a result of which, the appellant sustained
injuries in his left leg. It is further claimed that he was taken to Stanley
Hospital, had first aid and returned home on the next day. It is also
further claimed that as he suffered swelling, he was advised to take X-
rays. Thereafter, it was found that he had a fracture in the left leg and
hence, admitted in the Stanley Hospital on 01.06.2015 and got
discharged on 15.06.2015. Since the fracture suffered by the appellant
was due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto rickshaw
mentioned above, owned by the first respondent, the appellant filed the
claim petition against the respondents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. The first respondent remained ex-parte before the Tribunal
and the second respondent/ Insurance company opposed the claim
petition by denying the manner of accident as averred in the claim
petition.
4. Before the Tribunal, in order to prove the averments in the
claim petition, the appellant/claimant was examined as PW1 and four
documents were marked as Exhibit P1 to Exhibit P4 on his side. The
disability certificate issued by the medical board was marked as
Exhibit C1. On behalf of the respondents, no witness was examined
and no documents were marked.
5. The Tribunal, on appreciation of evidence available on record,
came to the conclusion that the accident as alleged by the claimant has
not been proved and hence, dismissed the claim petition. Aggrieved by
the same, the claimant has come before this court by way of this
appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that merely
because there is a delay of two months in filing FIR, the Tribunal ought
not have dismissed the claim petition by overlooking the evidence of
claimant as PW1. The learned counsel further submitted that as per
Exhibit P1, FIR, the vehicle of the first respondent was involved in the
accident and hence, the Tribunal ought have granted just compensation
to the appellant by taking into consideration the fracture suffered by
him in his left leg.
7. The learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that
the Tribunal has appreciated the oral and documentary evidence
available on record properly and rightly dismissed the claim petition
and the said findings require no interference.
8. As per the averments in the pleadings, the petitioner met with
a road accident on 11.05.2015. However, the FIR was registered only
on 17.07.2015 nearly after two months. Absolutely, there is no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
explanation on the part of the claimant for the delay in lodging FIR.
From Exhibit P2, discharge summary issued by the Stanley Medical
College, it is clear that the petitioner was admitted on 01.06.2015 and
discharged on 15.06.2015. When the appellant/claimant got discharged
from the hospital on 15.06.2015, what prevented him from lodging FIR
immediately, has not been explained. A perusal of the discharge
summary, Exhibit P2, further indicates that claimant at the time of
admission informed the hospital authorities that he had suffered a self
fall about two weeks ago. Therefore, it is clear that the fracture suffered
by the appellant is not due to the road accident and it is only due to the
self fall, as mentioned in Exhibit P2, Discharge Summary. Had the
claimant informed about the alleged road accident when he got
admitted to the hospital, certainly, the authorities would have informed
the police. In the case on hand, the claimant informed the hospital
authorities as if he suffered a self fall two weeks before. Therefore, the
evidence of Exhibit P2 falsifies the case of the claimant that he had
suffered a fracture due to road accident.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9. The learned counsel for the appellant, by taking this Court to
Exhibit P3, Outpatient slip issued by Government Stanley Hospital,
submitted that he mentioned about road accident to hospital authorities
earlier. The certified copy of OP slip dated 28.05.2015 has been
circulated by the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant. A perusal
of the same would indicate that the claimant was treated as outpatient
on 11.05.2015 one day after the accident.
10. The notings in outpatient slip would indicate that the
petitioner suffered only abrasion in left forearm and swelling in left
leg. Though the left leg anterior, lateral view and left ankle lateral view
X-rays have been taken, the outpatient slip has not mentioned anything
about a fracture. In such circumstances, the submission made by the
learned counsel for the claimant cannot be accepted. Further, in the
case on hand, the claimant himself informed the hospital authorities on
01.06.2015 that he had suffered a self fall and got injured. Therefore,
the averments made in the claim petition are only an after thought and
the Tribunal rightly had taken into consideration the documentary
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
evidence available on record and came to the conclusion that the
claimants failed to prove the manner of accident and dismissed the
claim petition. Hence, I do not find anything to interfere with the same.
Accordingly, the civil miscellaneous petition stands dismissed. No
costs.
12.02.2025
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
nr
To
1. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Sub-Ordinate Judge, Tiruttani.
2. The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
nr
12.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
