Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 3957 (MAD)

Mohammed Sadiq v. K. Chandran & Others

2007-12-04

P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJA

body2007
Judgment :- The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree made in MCOP No.750/95 dated 20.04.1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Erode. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:- The claimant was injured in a road traffic accident on 212. 1994 at about 10.00 a.m. The claimant was riding his bicycle on the left side of the Gandhiji Road, Erode. At that time, a van bearing Registration No.TDO 5515 belonging to the second respondent herein, came from south and dashed against the claimant. Due to the accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries all over the body. They are:- a) Fracture of the right chin bone b) 3 Nos. teeth in the upper jaw shaking and ½ tooth in the same upper jaw was broken. c) Bleeding injuries on the eye brow, back of the head, right hip, right elbow, right knee and foot. Immediately after the accident, the claimant was taken to the Government Headquarters Hospital, Erode and admitted as in-patient on 212. 1994 and discharged on 16.01.1995. The claimant claimed a compensation of Rs.1,55,000/- before the Tribunal. The van was insured with the third respondent / Insurance Company, who resisted the claim. On the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issue:- "Whether the claimant is entitled for any compensation or not?" After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the claimant was not at all involved in the accident and hence dismissed the claim petition. Aggrieved by the order, the claimant has filed the present appeal. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant / claimant submitted that the Tribunal is wrong in holding that the claimant was not at all involved in the accident. It is also submitted that the Tribunal ought to have considered the evidence on record and ought to have held that the claimant is entitled for the compensation. Therefore, it is submitted that the order passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same should be set aside. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the third respondent / Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal had considered all the relevant materials and evidence available on record and came to the correct conclusion that the claimant was not at all involved in the accident. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the third respondent / Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal had considered all the relevant materials and evidence available on record and came to the correct conclusion that the claimant was not at all involved in the accident. Hence the order passed by the Tribunal is in accordance with law and the same has to be confirmed. 5. Heard the counsel. On the side of the claimant, witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined and documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P14 were marked. On the side of the Insurance Company, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked. P.W.1 is the claimant. P.W.2 and P.W.3 are Doctors. Ex.P1 is the attested copy of First Information Report. Ex.P2 is the attested copy of rough sketch. Ex.P3 is the attested copy of observation mahazar. Ex.P4 is the attested copy of Motor Vehicle Inspectors Report. Ex.P5 is the attested copy of charge sheet. Ex.P6 is the attested copy of judgment passed by Judicial Magistrate No.3, Erode. Ex.P7 is the wound certificate. Ex.P8 is the out-patient slip given by Government Hospital, Erode. Ex.P9 and Ex.P10 are x-rays. Ex.P11 is the disability certificate. Ex.P12 is the photocopy of the accident register. Ex.P13 is the case sheet (in-patient). Ex.P14 is the letter given by the Erode Government Headquarters Hospital. After considering the above oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal found out lot of discrepancies as well as alteration in the various exhibits marked on behalf of the claimant. The accident occurred on 212. 1994 at about 10.00 p.m., but the claim petition was filed on 09.06.1995. In that claim petition it was stated that the age of the claimant was 20 years at the time of accident. But in the Wound Certificate, i.e., Ex.P7, the age of the claimant was stated as 30 years at the time of accident. It is also seen that one Palaniswamy, another person, who sustained injuries and taken treatment in the Government Hospital, Erode, had given statement to the Police, based on which the First Information Report was filed, which is Ex.P1. In the F.I.R., it was stated that when the said Palaniswamy was going in a bicycle, a tempo van bearing Registration No.TDO 5515 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the bicycle in which the said Palaniswamy was riding and also dashed against another cyclist. P.W.1 is the claimant himself. In the F.I.R., it was stated that when the said Palaniswamy was going in a bicycle, a tempo van bearing Registration No.TDO 5515 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the bicycle in which the said Palaniswamy was riding and also dashed against another cyclist. P.W.1 is the claimant himself. He deposed that his age was 21 years on 23.06.1998, the date on which he was cross-examined. If the claimants age was 21 years as on 23.06.1998, his age should be 17 years on the date of the accident. If this is true, his age should be 18 years at the time of filing the claim petition. But in the claim petition, the age of the claimant was mentioned as 20 years. If the age of the claimant was 20 years at the time of filing of the claim petition, he should be 23 years on the date of cross-examination. But in the year 1994 itself it was stated in the hospital records that he should be 30 years on the date of the accident. It is also seen from the records that in the cross-examination he categorically stated that he was 21 years at the time of accident and he does not know the street, door number and also the address. When the claimant was asked for the Ration Card he stated that he does not know and it must be with his mother. The claimant also stated that he was taking treatment for 19 days and he was not enquired by the Police about the accident. Ex.P7 is the wound certificate given by the hospital, but the same was obtained just a week before the cross-examination. Ex.P8 is the out-patient slip which was also obtained just a week before the cross-examination. Ex.P12 is the photocopy of accident register. In Ex.P12, under the column "name", it was mentioned as "unknown" and the same was brought to the notice of the Court and the Court also verified the document and found that there was an alteration in the accident register and there was a correction made on 30.06.1998 including the name of the claimant. There is no dispute regarding the alteration in the document. The Tribunal had also given a categorical finding that the name of the claimant was inserted in different ink, namely, black ink, in the said exhibit. Ex.P13 is the case sheet (in-patient). There is no dispute regarding the alteration in the document. The Tribunal had also given a categorical finding that the name of the claimant was inserted in different ink, namely, black ink, in the said exhibit. Ex.P13 is the case sheet (in-patient). There also, under the column "name", it was noted only as "unknown" and the name of the claimant was included only later in different ink. After considering the above oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal had given a categorical finding that the claimant was not at all involved in the accident and accordingly, the claim petition was dismissed. 6. The findings given by the Tribunal are based on valid materials and evidence and I do not find any error or illegality in the order of the Tribunal so as to warrant interference. Under the circumstances, the findings given by the Tribunal is confirmed and accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs.