Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 2702 (MAD)

S. A. Vijayasagar v. Palanisamy & Another

2007-08-27

R.BANUMATHI

body2007
Judgment :- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred against the Judgment and Decree dated 18.08.2000 passed in MCOP No.687/96 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Principal Sub Judge, Salem, dismissing the Claim Petition preferred by the appellant. 2. Facts which led to the present appeal are that on 02.02.1996, at about 12 noon, the appellant was riding his motorcycle from the State Bank Colony to Gugai, Salem. It is alleged that one Venkatachalam, S/o Perumal, was the pillion rider. According to the appellant, at the place where the Cross Road meets the Salem Bangalore Main Raod, when the appellant had stopped his vehicle, the first Respondent, driving his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the claimants stationary vehicle, as a result of which, claimants motorcycle was badly damaged. According to the appellant, he was thrown away from his vehicle and sustained injuries on his left temple and left shoulder. Alleging that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the first Respondent, appellant filed Claim Petition claiming damages towards the damages to the vehicle and also for the injuries sustained by him. 3. Respondents contested the claim alleging that the appellant did not drive the motorcycle and that it was driven by the said Venkatachalam. 4. As a matter of fact, the said Venkatachalam was charge-sheeted and he has admitted his offence and paid fine for the offences under Section 279 and 338 IPC along with Sec.3 r/w S.181 Motor Vehicles Act. Pointing out admission of offence by the said Venkatachalam, the learned Tribunal has held that only Venkatachalam drove the vehicle. Observing that claimant has not proved rash and negligent driving of the first Respondent, the Tribunal has dismissed the Claim Petition. The Tribunal also held that the appellant claimant has not substantiated the nature of injuries sustained by him and also the damages to the vehicle. 5. Challenging the findings of the Tribunal, the learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has failed to take note of the fact that only the appellant drove the motorcycle and that for the damages to the vehicle, the second respondent Insurance Company is liable to compensate the appellant. It was further submitted that the appellant sustained simple injuries and that the Tribunal has erred in not awarding compensation towards the injuries sustained by the appellant. 6. It was further submitted that the appellant sustained simple injuries and that the Tribunal has erred in not awarding compensation towards the injuries sustained by the appellant. 6. Reiterating the findings of the Tribunal, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that the appellant has taken an inconsistent stand. Drawing my attention to the Judgment of the Tribunal, the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that the Tribunal has appreciated the evidence and has recorded factual findings that the accident was due to negligent driving of the first Respondent and that factual finding cannot be interfered with. 7. The learned Counsel for the appellant has firstly contended that the appellant alone drove the vehicle and that fact ought to have been taken note of by the Tribunal. This contention does not merit acceptance. As noticed earlier, the said Venkatachalam alone was charge-sheeted in C.C.No.194/1996 and he has paid fine for the offences under Ss.279 and 338 IPC along with Sec.3 r/w S.181 Motor Vehicles Act. While the said Venkatachalam has admitted the offence, it is not open to the appellant to contend that the motorcycle was driven by him at the time of the accident. The learned Counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that the appellant in fact, does not possess a valid driving licence and only Venkatachalam had valid driving licence for driving two wheelers. It was also stated that having regard to the valid driving licence possessed by the said Venkatachalam, the Insurance Company has also settled the claim towards the damages to the vehicle to the tune of Rs.1,150/-. 8. The next contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal has erred in not awarding damages to the injuries sustained by the appellant. The appellant has not adduced any evidence to show that he has sustained injuries and that he was taking treatment. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the second respondent – Insurance Company, even the Doctor was not examined to substantiate the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant and any loss of earning capacity. When the appellant has not substantiated his claim, the Tribunal has rightly concluded that the appellant is not entitled to the claim and that factual finding cannot be interfered with. 9. For the foregoing reasons, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. When the appellant has not substantiated his claim, the Tribunal has rightly concluded that the appellant is not entitled to the claim and that factual finding cannot be interfered with. 9. For the foregoing reasons, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs.