1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 27.09.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM C.M.A(MD)No.560 of 2011 1.Saroja 2.Thangammal (minor) 3.Sangeetha (minor) 4.Rajendran (minor) 5.Ramkumar (minor) (RR-2 to 5 rep.by R1) .. Appellants/Petitioners Vs. 1.Principal Chithambaram Pillai Women's College Mannachannallur, Trichirapalli. 2.The Branch Manager National Insurance Ltd. 135-1 Rose Building main road Kovilpatti. .. Respondents/Respondents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against order dated 18.08.2009 passed in MCOP No.1474 of 2005 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Third Additional Sub Court, Trichirapalli. For Appellants : Mr.M.Siddharthan For R – 2 : M/s.P.Malini For R – 1 : No appearance JUDGMENT This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been directed against the dismissal order dated 18.08.2009 passed in MCOP No.1474 of 2005 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Third Additional Sub Court, Trichirapalli. 2. The appellants herein as petitioners have filed MCOP No.1474 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal praying to pass an award for the amount mentioned therein, wherein the present respondents have been shown as respondents. 3. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal after considering the available evidence on record has dismissed the petition. Against the dismissal order, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred at the instance of the petitioners as appellants. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/petitioners has contended that the accident has happened on 16.12.2004 and due to accident the original petitioner by name Thatha Pillai has sustained injuries and on that basis he filed the present petition for getting compensation. During pendency of the same, he passed away and subsequently the remaining petitioners have been impleaded as his legal heirs and since the death of the first petitioner has occurred due to injuries sustained by him in the accident, the remaining petitioners are entitled to get compensation and in order to prove the cause of death of the first petitioner, replete evidence has been let in on the side of the petitioners. But the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has failed to consider the same and therefore, the dismissal order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is liable to be set aside. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent has contended that the accident has happened on 16.12.2004 and after a lapse of two years that is on 14.12.2006 the first petitioner has passed away and further on the side of the petitioners absolutely there is no evidence with regard to immediate cause of death. Under the said circumstances, after considering the over all evidence available on record, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has rightly dismissed the petition and therefore, the dismissal order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal need not be set aside. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/petitioners has drawn the attention of the Court to the decision reported in 2009 (1) TN MAC 465 (Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd rep.by its Divisional Manager Vs. N.Meenal and others), wherein this Court has found that in the absence of medical evidence, evidence given on the side of the claimants can be accepted on the basis of probabilities. 7. The entire argument advanced on the side of the appellants/petitioners is based upon Ex.P7 and also evidence given by PW3. Ex.P7 is a certificate issued by PW3, wherein it has been stated that the death would have occurred due to injuries alleged to have been caused to the deceased in the accident. The author of Ex.P7 has been examined as PW3 and in his proof affidavit it has been stated to the effect that the death would have occurred due to injuries sustained by the deceased due to accident. But during the course of cross examination he has stated to the effect that he is not certain enough to say that the death has occurred due to injuries sustained by the deceased due to accident. Therefore, PW3 has given nebulous evidence and further the accident has happened on 16.12.2004 and immediately after accident the deceased/first petitioner has been admitted in a Government hospital and within a period of two days he has bee. discharged from hospital on 18.12.2004. Then, after a period of two years he passed away on 14.12.2006. If really the injuries alleged to have been sustained by him would cause death, definitely death could have occurred immediately after the date of accident. In the instant case the death has occurred after a lapse of two years. Further as stated earlier, the deceased/first petitioner has been discharged from hospital on 18.12.2004 and he passed away on 14.12.2006. During interregnum period, no document has been forthcoming so as to prove that he got treatment due to injuries sustained by him. Therefore, viewing from any angle the evidence of PW3 cannot be considered as a concrete evidence so as to come to a conclusion https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 that the death of the first petitioner has had occurred due to injuries sustained by him in the accident. Since PW3 himself has given nebulous evidence as pointed out earlier, the decision referred to supra is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 8. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal after evaluating the evidence available on record has rightly found that the petitioners are not entitled to get compensation. In view of the discussion made earlier, this Court has not found any error nor flaw in the dismissal order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and therefore, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal deserves to be dismissed. 9. In fine, this Civil miscellaneous Appeal deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed without cost and the order dated 18.08.2009 passed in MCOP No.1474 of 2005 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Third Additional Sub Court, Trichirapalli is confirmed. mj Sd/- Assistant Registrar[T&P] /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Third Additional Subordiante Judge, Trichirapalli. +1 cc to M/s.P.Nalini, Advocate SR.No.33427. C.M.A(MD)No.560 of 2011 Dated:27.09.2011 3P/3C RPB 13.10.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/