VEERAMUTHU Vs. SHANMUGA SUNDARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this Appeal is to the Order in M.C.O.P.No.262 of 2001 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagapattinam, dismissing the Claim Petition filed by the Appellant-Claimant claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident on 22.03.1993.

(2.) BRIEF facts which are relevant for disposal of this Appeal are as follows:- On 22.03.1993 the Claimant was proceeding in two a wheeler bearing registration No. TN-51 3562. While he was proceeding near Melaboothanoor, the first Respondent came in the opposite direction in TVS-50 XL bearing registration No. TN-51-Z 3936 driven in a rash and negligent manner and the first Respondent came in the wrong direction and hit against the two wheeler of the Claimant. Due to the impact, the Claimant had fallen down and sustained injuries in the lower jaw. Due to the injuries in the lower jaw, few teeth had fallen. After the accident the Claimant was admitted in Government Hospital, Thiruvarur. After taking initial treatment, the Claimant got himself admitted in Tanjore Medical College Hospital where he had taken treatment as in-patient for nearly two months. Alleging that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the two wheeler by the first Respondent, the Claimant had filed Petition U/s.166 of M.V. Act 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.

(3.) THOUGH the accident was in the year 1993, the Claimant had filed Claim Petition only after eight years of the accident. Before the Tribunal, the Claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and Dr. Balachandran was examined as P.W.2. F.I.R. registered against the Claimant himself was marked as Ex.P.1. Exs.P.2 to P.6 were marked. On the side of the Respondents, the first Respondent examined himself as R.W.1. Exs.R.1 and R.2 were marked. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, Tribunal has held that the Claimant himself was responsible for the accident. Referring to the evidence of R.W.1, Tribunal held that R.W.1 was not responsible for the accident. The Tribunal has also faulted the Claimant for not having given any complaint for about eight years and filing Claim Petition nearly after a period of eight years. On those findings and observing that the claim lacks credibility, Tribunal has dismissed the Claim Petition.