1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 05.07.2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.416 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1 of 2011 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., AVM Associates, A.V.M. Jewellers Complex, Keela Raja Veethi, Pudukkottai District. .. Appellant/2nd Respondent Vs. 1.Pichai ..1st Respondent/Claimant 2.R.Raja .. 2nd Respondent/1st Respondent Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the fair and decreetal order dated 22.02.2010 passed in M.C.O.P.No.65 of 2009 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional District Court/Fast Track Court, Pudukkottai. For Appellant .. Mr.S.Srinivasa Ragavan For Respondent .. Mr.M.Palanichamy No.1 For Respondent .. No appearance No.2 JUDGMENT Challenge in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is to the award dated 22.02.2010 passed in M.C.O.P.No.65 of 2009 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Fast Track Court, Pudukkottai. 2. The first respondent herein as petitioner has filed M.C.O.P.No.65 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal praying to pass an award of Rs.20,00,000/- by way of compensation, wherein the present appellant has been shown as second respondent. 3. It is averred in the petition that on 27.04.2006 at about 05.30 a.m., the petitioner has driven his bicycle on Pudukkottai-Trichy main road. At that time, the first respondent has driven his motor cycle bearing Registration No.TN-55-K-7002 in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner. Due to accident, the petitioner has sustained multiple grievous injuries. The petitioner has taken treatment from 27.04.2006 to 12.05.2006 and subsequently he got treatment in a private hospital from 12.05.2006 to 30.05.2006. The vehicle which caused the accident, has been insured with the second respondent. Under the said circumstances, the present petition has been filed for getting the relief sought for therein. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. In the counter filed on the side of the second respondent, it is averred that the accident has happened on 27.04.2006. But it is false to say that the accident has happened due to rash and negligent driving of the first respondent. The vehicle of the first respondent has not at all involved in the accident. There is no merit in the petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. 5. On the basis of the available evidence on record, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.75,000/-. Against the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred at the instance of the second respondent as appellant. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/second respondent has not touched the quantum of compensation fixed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The only attack made on the side of the appellant/second respondent is that the vehicle of the first respondent has not involved in the accident as putforth on the side of the first respondent/petitioner. The entire attack made on the side of the appellant/second respondent is based upon Ex.R.5. Ex.R.5 is nothing, but a Referred Charge Sheet filed by the Investigating Officer, wherein it has been simply stated that on the basis of statements recorded by the Investigating Agency, it is found that the alleged occurrence is nothing, but a mistake of fact. Except the aforesaid finding, no other document has been field along with Ex.R.5. Since the Investigating Agency has not annexed the statements alleged to have been recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the finding alone given in Ex.R.5 is not at all sufficient to come to a conclusion that the accident has not happened as alleged on the side of the first respondent/petitioner. 7. In order to controvert the denial of accident putforth on the side of the second respondent, on the side of the petitioner, Ex.P.8 has been filed. Ex.P.8 is nothing, but a copy of Accident Register, wherein it has been clearly stated that the petitioner has sustained injury due to road accident. Considering the fact that Ex.P.8 has come into existence on 27.04.2006 and also considering that in Ex.P.8, it has been clearly stated that the petitioner has sustained injury due to road accident, it is needless to say that Ex.P.8 is a clinching document for the purpose of proving the accident as alleged on the side of the petitioner. Apart from Ex.P.8, the petitioner has been examined as P.W.1. He has clearly deposed in his evidence about the factum of accident. Therefore it is needless to say that plenty of evidence is available on the side of the petitioner so as to prove the factum of accident as narrated in the petition. 8. As stated supra, on the side of the second respondent, except Ex.R.5 no other clinching document has been filed so as to prove that the accident has not happened as alleged on the side of the petitioner. Further along with Ex.R.5, the statements alleged to have been recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, have not been filed and therefore no credence could be attached to Ex.R.5. Considering the fact that no credence could be attached to Ex.R.5 and also considering that on the side of the petitioner trustworthy evidence is available so as to prove the factum of accident, it is needless to say that the attack made on the side of the second respondent is of no use. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 9. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal after considering all the evidence available on record has rightly found that the accident has happened as alleged on the side of the petitioner. In the exordium of this order, it has been pointed out that no attack has been made with regard to quantum of compensation fixed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Under the said circumstances, the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is perfectly correct and the same need not be interfered with. 10. In fine, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed without costs and the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.65 of 2009 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional District Court/Fast Track Court, Pudukkottai is confirmed. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed. SD ASST REGISTRAR ( RTI Act ) /TRUE COPY/ SUB ASST REGISTRAR smn To The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Additional District Judge/ Fast Track Court, Pudukkottai. 1CC TO MR. S. SRINIVASA RAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE, SR: 21650: 1CC TO MR. M. PALANISAMY, ADVOCATE, SR: 21628: DM::2011:JULY::21:: C.M.A(MD)No.416 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 05.07.2011 3P:4C:: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/