Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2275 (MAD)

N. Raja v. M. Rangaraj & Another

2008-07-07

P.R.SHIVAKUMAR

body2008
Judgment :- 1. The unsuccessful petitioner before the Tribunal, whose petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was dismissed, has come forward with this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. Alleging that the petitioner met with an accident on 10.05.1998 at about 12.15 hours near Mani High School Bus Stop, Kuppusamy Naidu Hospital, Coimbatore City as the bus bearing Registration No.TN 38 N 0565 belonging to the second respondent Transport Corporation hit the unregistered scooter in which the petitioner was proceeding and that the appellant/petitioner sustained grievous injuries leading to permanent disability and the consequential loss of earning capacity, the appellant/petitioner made a claim of Rs.2,00,000/-as compensation from the respondents herein in their capacities as the driver and owner of the above said offending vehicle. 3. The first respondent herein (driver) did not contest the case and chose to remain exparte before the Tribunal. The second respondent Transport Corporation resisted the claim by stating that the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 38 N 0565 belonging to the respondent Corporation, which was plied with Route No.41-D on the date of alleged accident, did not meet with any accident on the said date; that the appellant/petitioner having sustained injuries somehow or other chose to give a complaint with the Police belatedly, informing them that the bus bearing Route No.40-A was the one which hit against him and that later on, after due deliberation, his statement was changed to the effect that it was the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 38 N 0565 and Route No.41-D which caused the accident. Based on the above said contentions, the second respondent Transport Corporation denied its liability to pay compensation to the appellant/petitioner. In addition to the said contention and without prejudice to the said contention, the second respondent Transport Corporation also contended that the amount claimed as compensation was not reasonable but, highly excessive and exorbitant. 4. In the trial that conducted based on the above said rival contentions, three witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.3 and eight documents were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8 on the side of the appellant/petitioner. One witness was examined as R.W.1 and one document was marked as Ex.RW.1 on the side of the respondents. 5. 4. In the trial that conducted based on the above said rival contentions, three witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.3 and eight documents were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8 on the side of the appellant/petitioner. One witness was examined as R.W.1 and one document was marked as Ex.RW.1 on the side of the respondents. 5. At the conclusion of trial, the Tribunal heard the arguments advanced on either side, considered the evidence brought before it, in the light of the said arguments and came to the conclusion that the appellant/petitioner failed to prove that the bus bearing Registration No.TN 38 N 0565 belonging to the second respondent was the vehicle which caused the accident on 10.05.1998 at 12.15 hours in which the appellant/petitioner allegedly sustained the injuries. Based on the said finding, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition in its entirety however, without costs. 6. Aggrieved by and challenging the said Judgment and Award of the Tribunal dated 04.02.2002, the appellant herein has brought forth this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal on various grounds set out in the memorandum of appeal. 7. This Court heard the submissions made by Mr. K.K. Anantha Padmanabhan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.Rajnish Pathiyil, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. The materials available on record were also perused. 8. The appellant/petitioner had made a claim against the respondents herein in their capacities as driver and owner of the alleged offending vehicle viz., the Passenger Bus bearing Registration No.TN 38 N 0565 with the contention that the said bus hit the unregistered scooter in which the petitioner was proceeding near Mani High School bus stop, Coimbatore City on 10.05.1998 at about 12.15 p.m. According to the appellants/petitioners case, the scooter and the said bus were proceeding in the opposite directions and the driver of the above said bus drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and in an attempt to overtake another stationery bus at the bus stop, the said bus run over the scooterist namely, the appellant/ petitioner. 9. The second respondent, owner of the offending vehicle, denied the very accident itself and contended that no such accident ever took place to the said vehicle of the second respondent bearing Registration No.TN 38 N 0565. 9. The second respondent, owner of the offending vehicle, denied the very accident itself and contended that no such accident ever took place to the said vehicle of the second respondent bearing Registration No.TN 38 N 0565. When the involvement of the vehicle belonging to the second respondent in the alleged accident is stoutly denied and disputed by the second respondent, it is for the appellant/ petitioner to prove the same by adducing reliable evidence. In this regard, the Tribunal appraised the evidence adduced on either side both oral and documentary, and came to the conclusion that there was a shift in the stand of the petitioner regarding the vehicle which allegedly hit him while he was proceeding in the scooter and thus, disbelieved the case of the appellant/petitioner. 10. Of course, besides examining himself as P.W.1, the appellant/petitioner has also examined one Penkar as an eyewitness to the accident as P.W.3. Certified copies of the First Information Report, Motor Vehicles Inspectors Report, Charge Sheet and Wound Certificate have been marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4 respectively. The other documents produced by the appellant/ petitioner as Ex.P.5 to Ex.P.8 are O.P. Chits, Medical Bills, x-ray and Disability Certificate. Ex.P.5 to Ex.P.8 are not germane for the consideration of the question as to whether the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 38 N 0565 was the one which hit the appellant/ petitioner and caused the accident. In Ex.P.1-Certified Copy of the First Information Report, registration number of the offending vehicle has not been furnished. On the other hand, route number alone has been furnished. As per the contents of Ex.P.1, it was the bus belonging to the second respondent Transport Corporation with Route No.40-C that caused the accident in question. However, the bus belonging to the second respondent Transport Corporation bearing Registration No.TN 38 N 0565 was subjected to the examination of the Motor Vehicles Inspector 9 days later namely, on 09.06.1998. Nothing is there in the Motor Vehicles Inspectors Report to suggest that the said vehicle should have involved in the accident in question. 11. Ex.P.3 is the Charge Sheet in which the first respondent herein was accused of committing not only the offences punishable under Section 279 and 338 I.P.C. but also for an offence under Section 134 (A) and (B) of the Motor Vehicles Act. 11. Ex.P.3 is the Charge Sheet in which the first respondent herein was accused of committing not only the offences punishable under Section 279 and 338 I.P.C. but also for an offence under Section 134 (A) and (B) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Simply because the first respondent has been prosecuted for the above said offences, we cannot come to the conclusion that the vehicle belonging to the second respondent bearing Registration No.TN 38 N 0565 was the one which caused the accident in question. Even in the Wound Certificate there is nothing to suggest that the vehicle bearing a particular registration number or a particular route number hit the petitioner and caused the accident. On the other hand, it has been stated that the appellant/petitioner was alleged to have sustained injuries as he dashed his two wheeler against a bus. Even though the second respondent was prosecuted for the above said offences, at the end, the criminal case ended in honourable acquittal. Three different versions seem to have been made, based on which the first respondent was acquitted in the criminal case. As per the FIR, the route number of the bus which allegedly hit the appellant was given as 40-C whereas before the Investigating agency statement was given to the effect that bus bearing Route No.41-A was the one which caused the accident. However, in the evidence before the Tribunal it was deposed to the effect that the bus bearing Route No.41-D was the one involved in the accident. In view of the above said discrepancy alone, the criminal case ended in acquittal. 12. It is true that a Judgment of the Criminal Court not based on any admission is a irrelevant and not admissible as a piece of evidence in a civil case or in a motor accident claims petition before the Tribunal, except to the limited purpose of showing that there was a prosecution which resulted in acquittal or conviction. The fact that the criminal prosecution ended in acquittal will not be helpful to the appellant/petitioner to show that the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 38 N 0565 was the one involved in the accident. The fact that the criminal prosecution ended in acquittal will not be helpful to the appellant/petitioner to show that the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 38 N 0565 was the one involved in the accident. Though the First Information Report was prepared based on the statement of the appellant/petitioner, when he was examined as P.W.1 before the Tribunal, he carefully omitted to refer to the route number of the bus involved in the accident in his chief examination and was content with furnishing the registration number of the vehicle. However, during cross examination, he denied having given a statement before the Police which formed the basis of the FIR that the bus bearing Route No.40-A was the vehicle involved in the accident. The same will show that the petitioner is capable of changing his version to suit his convenience. 13. Though the petitioner was taken to Coimbatore Medical College Hospital which is at a distance of less than two kilometers immediately after the accident, there was an inordinate delay in setting the the criminal law in motion by giving a complaint to the Police. The accident took place at 12.15 hours on 5. 1998, but the case was registered at 22.00 hours on 15. 1998. Even in the complaint given to the Police after such a delay, the petitioner has given only the route number and not the registration number. It is curious to note that the route number furnished by the petitioner in the complaint to the Police is only 40-C whereas subsequently, the Police filed a charge sheet as if the bus bearing Registration No.TN 38 N 0565 was the one involved in the accident. But in the charge sheet route number has not been furnished. Police have not correlated the route number. Perhaps aware of the fact that the registration number furnished in the FIR would not tally with a route number, the Police would have chosen to submit a charge sheet without correlating the route number with the registration number of the bus. Therefore, the Charge Sheet and the Motor Vehicles Inspectors Report will not lend any support to the appellant/petitioners case regarding the identity of the vehicle which caused the accident. 14. The next part of the evidence to be taken for consideration is the testimony of P.W.3. Therefore, the Charge Sheet and the Motor Vehicles Inspectors Report will not lend any support to the appellant/petitioners case regarding the identity of the vehicle which caused the accident. 14. The next part of the evidence to be taken for consideration is the testimony of P.W.3. P.W.3 has been examined as a chance witness who allegedly travelled in the offending vehicle at the time of accident. It is the case of the petitioner and that of the Police before the criminal Court that the vehicle was not stopped at the accident spot and it proceeded further without even caring for the injured. However, P.W.3 was examined as an eyewitness. He has not stated anything as to whether the vehicle was stopped at the place of accident or it simply proceeded towards its destination. When a specific question was put to him in the cross examination, he pleaded ignorance as to whether the bus bearing Route No.40-A was shown as the offending vehicle in the petition. This Court is at a loss to understand how the petitioner found out P.W.3 to be one of the passengers who travelled in the bus at the time of accident. Admittedly, P.W.3 did not depose before the Criminal Court. He was also not in a position to state the unit to which the offending bus was attached. He has also not produced the ticket to show he was one of the passengers in the said bus. If at all he was so committed to see that the driver of the offending vehicle and the owner be taken to task in an action for compensation, he could have very well asked the driver to stop the vehicle immediately after the accident. Or else, he could have informed the Police after alighting at the destination. Though he would have stated that he boarded the bus at a bus stop which is two bus stops away from Kuppusamy Naidu Hospital bus stop, he was not in able to state what was the name of the bus stop. The very vital discrepancy that is found in the evidence of P.W.3 is that he would state that the other vehicle in which the petitioner was proceeding at the time of accident was a Motorcycle whereas admittedly, it was a scooter. 15. The very vital discrepancy that is found in the evidence of P.W.3 is that he would state that the other vehicle in which the petitioner was proceeding at the time of accident was a Motorcycle whereas admittedly, it was a scooter. 15. All these aspects were clearly analyzed by the Tribunal for coming to the conclusion that the appellant/ petitioner who met with an accident which took place due to his own negligence in driving the unregistered scooter without possessing valid driving licence and without knowing how to ride it, attempted to claim compensation by fixing any one of the buses owned by the second respondent Transport Corporation and that that is why there had been a lot of confusion over the route number and the registration number of the bus involved in the accident. This Court, after an independent evaluation and re-appreciation of evidence, also comes to the conclusion that the appellant/ petitioner has miserably failed to prove the connection between the alleged accident in which he sustained injuries and the bus bearing Registration No.TN 38 N 0565 which was plied with Route No.41-D on the date of the alleged accident. 16. For all these reasons stated above, this Court comes to the conclusion that there is no defect or infirmity in the finding of the Tribunal recorded in this regard and there is no scope, whatsoever, to interfere with the same. There is no merit in the appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. But taking a lenient view, this Court does not pass any order as to payment of costs.