Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2202 (MAD)

Rajamani v. D. Gowri & Another

2008-07-02

P.R.SHIVAKUMAR

body2008
Judgment :- 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional Subordinate Judge),Thiruvannamalai, dated 28.09.2001 made in M.C.O.P.No.125 of 1997. 2. The appellant herein had filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the respondent herein claiming a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation based on the allegation that he sustained injuries in a road accident that took place on 29.07.1996 at about 11.00 a.m. on Poonamallee High Road, near the Commercial Check Post in Poonamallee. It was further contended therein that the appellant/petitioner was employed as a cleaner in the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-29-X-2316; that on the fateful day he got down from the said lorry at the check post and was proceeding towards the check post for getting the seal of the check post authority in the documents; that while thus proceeding towards the check post, the lorry bearing Registration No.PYS-3070, belonging to the first respondent herein, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came at a high speed as a result of which, the same dashed against the appellant/petitioner and caused to the accident. Contending further that the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the said lorry had caused the accident and that the said accident resulted in grievous injuries to the appellant/petitioner leading to permanent disability, the petitioner had claimed the above said amount for compensation from the respondents herein. The claim against the second respondent was made based on the plea that the said offending lorry stood insured with the second respondent as on the date of accident as per the information received by the appellant/petitioner. 3. The owner of the offending vehicle, arrayed as the first respondent, did not contest the case and remained exparte. The petition was resisted by the second respondent alone by putting in a counter statement, denying the petition averments and contending that the vehicle in question was not insured with the second respondent. 4. The Tribunal conducted the trial in which the appellant/petitioner was examined as the sole witness(P.W.1) and the certified copy of the first information report and discharge summary were marked as Ex-P1 and P2. No witness was examined and no document was marked on the side of the contesting respondent. 4. The Tribunal conducted the trial in which the appellant/petitioner was examined as the sole witness(P.W.1) and the certified copy of the first information report and discharge summary were marked as Ex-P1 and P2. No witness was examined and no document was marked on the side of the contesting respondent. After considering the evidence in the light of the arguments advanced on either side, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the appellant/petitioner did not prove that he was the person injured in the accident that was reported in Ex-P1 first information report and that the appellant/petitioner failed to prove the alleged accident caused to him. The Tribunal also referred to the copy of the first information report marked as Ex.P1 and Discharge Summary marked as Ex-P2 and held that the said discharge summary could not be relied on as the same did not contain either the seal of the Hospital or the signature of the authority who issued it. In view of the said findings, the Tribunal chose to dismiss the petition seeking compensation in its entirety. 5. As against the said judgment and decree of the Tribunal, the appellant/petitioner has come forward this civil miscellaneous appeal on various grounds set out in the memorandum of appeal. 6. This Court heard the submissions made by Mr. T.R. Rajaraman, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. The materials available on record were also perused. .7. 6. This Court heard the submissions made by Mr. T.R. Rajaraman, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. The materials available on record were also perused. .7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal committed an error in rejecting the discharge summary marked as Ex-P2 as unreliable; that a conjoint reading of Ex.P1 and Ex-P2 would clearly show that there was an accident involving the vehicle belonging to the first respondent bearing Registration No.PYS-3070, in which the appellant/petitioner sustained injuries; that for the said injuries alone, he was given treatment in Kilpauk Medical College Hospital as inpatient from 29.07.1996 to 06.08.1996; that the admission note made by the medical authorities would go to show that he had sustained injuries in the road accident that took place at about 10.30 a.m. on 29.07.1996 near Poonamallee; that the same also would reveal the fact that the appellant/petitioner had lost his four teeth besides sustaining several fractures; that the nature of injuries alone would suggest that the same should have resulted in permanent disability and that in such circumstances, the Tribunal should have at least awarded the amount covered by the no fault liability. 8. The learned counsel for the second respondent /Insurance Company would submit that there was no defect or infirmity in the finding of the Tribunal; that the appellant/petitioner failed to prove the alleged accident and that even assuming that the petitioner sustained injuries in the alleged accident, no liability could be caused on the second respondent, as there is nothing to show that the alleged offending vehicle stood insured with the second respondent on the relevant date. 9. This Court gave its anxious considerations to the above submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side. 10. The very factum of accident itself was disputed by the contesting respondent before the Tribunal. Of course, it is true that the first respondent, the alleged owner of the offending vehicle did not contest the case and remained exparte. The mere fact that the owner remained exparte will not lead to automatic granting of the relief sought for in the suit or the Original petition as the case may be. Of course, the second respondent/insurance company does not have proof of having obtained permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act to resist the claim on merits. The mere fact that the owner remained exparte will not lead to automatic granting of the relief sought for in the suit or the Original petition as the case may be. Of course, the second respondent/insurance company does not have proof of having obtained permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act to resist the claim on merits. In such situation, the enquiry as against the owner of the alleged offending vehicle is nothing but an exparte inquiry. Simply because the party entitled to resist the case remained exparte, the same will not automatically lead to grant of the relief sought for. The only difference is that in such situation the witnesses examined on the side of the claimant shall not be subject to a cross examination by such party. Even then the petitioner/claimant has to satisfy the Court regarding the genuineness of the claim. 11. In the case on hand, excepting the interested testimony of P.W.1, there is no other reliable evidence. Ex-P1 is not helpful to the petitioner, in so far as his name does not find a place anywhere in the said document. As rightly pointed out by the Tribunal, ExP2 is not a reliable document as the same does not contain either the seal of the hospital or signature of the medical officer concerned. It could have been prepared after getting an empty sheet removed from the concerned register. Further more, the exact place of accident has also not been noted in the sheet. If at all, the appellant/petitioner was taken to the Government Hospital for treatment immediately after the accident, accident register would have been prepared at the time of admission. The petitioner has not chosen to get either the copy of the accident register or wound certificate from the hospital concerned. The appellant/petitioner who has come forward to make a claim based on his contention that he suffered permanent disability, has also failed to get and produce disability certificate. Neither the medical Officer nor anybody connected with the medical institution, in which the petitioner was given treatment, was summoned and examined and none of the eye witnesses to the accident and not even the author of the complaint was examined. 12. Under these circumstances, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the finding of the Tribunal. Neither the medical Officer nor anybody connected with the medical institution, in which the petitioner was given treatment, was summoned and examined and none of the eye witnesses to the accident and not even the author of the complaint was examined. 12. Under these circumstances, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the finding of the Tribunal. The appellant/petitioner has miserably failed to correlate the accident reported under Ex.P1 with him and prove that it was he who sustained injuries in the said accident covered by Ex-P1 first information report. There is no merit in this appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.