Ramakrishnan, & Ors. vs Nithianandan, & Anr.

This civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 24.01.2000 made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.169 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional Sub-Judge), Pondicherry.

The case of the claimants is that on 11.12.1998 at about 9.30 p.m., the deceased viz., Padmavathy was walking along Marakanam- Pondicherry main road (East-Coast road) near the Blind School, Pillaichavadi from North to South and at that time, T.V.S.Moped bearing Registration NO.PYQ 9731 belonging to the first respondent driven by one Ravi in a rash and negligent manner dashed against Padmavathi from behind. The deceased was taken to General Hospital, Pondicheery, where she was reported dead. The second respondent is the insurer of the first respondent''s vehicle. The claimants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased Padmavathy, have filed a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- from the respondents for the death of the deceased Padmavathy. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence adduced on the side of the claimants, dismissed the claim petition without cost. As against the said order of dismissal, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed before this Court.

The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants would contend that the Tribunal ought to have held that the T.V.S.Moped bearing Registration NO.PYQ 9731 driven by one Ravi was involved in the accident and consequently, the respondents are liable to pay compensation to the appellants/claimants. It is further submitted that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petition on the ground that there was some discrepancy in vehicle number in the FIR and claim petition. It is also submitted that the Tribunal ought to have relied on the evidence produced by the claimants and also the documents filed by them to prove their case. Hence, the learned counsel for the appellants prayed that the order passed by the Tribunal has to be set aside and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has to be allowed.

The learned counsel for the second respondent/insurance company would mainly contend that the Tribunal, after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, correctly dismissed the claim petition filed by the claimants and therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal and hence, the learned counsel prayed that the order passed by the Tribunal has to be confirmed and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has to be dismissed.

This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/insurance company and perused the entire records. The appeal as against the first respondent is dismissed vide Court order dated 09.07.2010.

In this case, the specific case of the appellants/claimants is that as per the FIR, the vehicle viz., T.V.S.Moped bearing Registration NO.PYQ 9731 has caused the accident. But, the first claimant, who was examined as P.W.1, has stated that the vehicle viz., Scooter bearing Registration No.PY-01-A-2439 has caused the accident. In this case, it is not clearly proved on the side of the claimants regarding which vehicle caused the accident whether it is T.V.S.Moped bearing Registration NO.PYQ 9731 or Scooter bearing Registration No.PY-01-A- 2439. The evidence of P.W.1 is not reliable and not acceptable. The appellants/claimants are not able to mention the fact that which vehicle caused the accident. On verification of records also, it is seen that P.W.1 has not clearly stated about which vehicle caused the accident. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that there is no illegality or infirmity in the award passed by the Tribunal in dismissing the claim petition and this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal which does not warrant any interference by this Court and hence, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal deserves to be dismissed.

In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed by confirming the judgment and decree dated 24.01.2000 made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.169 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional Sub-Judge), Pondicherry. There shall be no order as to costs.