MUTHURAJ ALIAS SATYAMURTHY Vs. V M KANDASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE injured-claimant before the Motor accident Claims Tribunal, Additional district Court, Fast Track Court No. 4, coimbatoreattirupur, is the appellant herein and he has challenged the order dated 21st march, 2003 passed by the Tribunal in m. C. O. P. No. 577 of 1998.

(2.) BEFORE the Tribunal, it was the case of the claimant that on 11th December, 1997, at about 6. 45 p. m,, when he was riding the scooter bearing Registration No. TLB 2572 in coimbatore NSR Road near Bharathi Park junction, the bus belonging to the Transport corporation, came from behind and dashed against the scooter thereby causing fracture in his right hand and abrasions all over his body. It was his case that he was aged 35 years and working as Generator Mechanic and supervisor in S. P. R. Engineering for a salary of Rs. 4,000/- per month and he is liable to be paid compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- by the respondents for the injuries sustained by him in the accident. It was his further case that he is a resident of Tanneer Pandal, arulpuram Post, Tiruppur Circle and hence, the Turppur Sub-Court has the territorial jurisdiction to try it. In support of his case, the injured-claimant examined four witnesses and marked 42 exhibits.

(3.) CONTENDING contra, it was the case of the Transport Corporation that when the claimant attempted to overtake its bus, he lost his balance, fell down near the rear wheel of the bus and got injured and thus, the accident occurred only due to the careless and negligent act of the claimant and not because of the rash and negligent act of the bus driver as contended by the claimant. The transport Corporation also contested the claim of the claimant with regard to his age, occupation and income and the medical expenses alleged to have been incurred by him and the total compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs sought by him in the claim petition. To prove its case, the Transport Corporation failed to examine any witness nor did it mark any exhibit. It was its strong case that the claimant did not reside in the jurisdiction of either the Sub-Court or the Tribunal and as such, claim petition had to be dismissed on the ground that the Tribunal did not have the territorial jurisdiction to examine the case.