VENKATESAN Vs. M K V KANDASAMY NADAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the claimant in M.C.O.P. No. 156 of 1997 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub-Judge), Chidambaram. He filed the petition claiming compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 for the injuries sustained by him in the road accident which happened on 22.4.1996.

(2.) IN the claim petition the following are stated: The petitioner was employed as driver by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and was earning more than Rs. 3,000 per month in average as salary and batta. On 22.4.1996, the petitioner was driving the vehicle bearing registration No. TN 04-A 2349 from Sethiathope to GST near Vikravandi. Two vehicles bearing registration No. TN 72-Z 7336 and TN 04-B 2529, were parked on the left and right side of the road without leaving any space in the middle of the road. While the petitioner was proceeding from south to north, due to the narrow space, he dashed against the two vehicles and due to the accident, he sustained multiple grievous injuries. His disability is permanent. He could not stand or walk. He is the sole breadwinner of the family having wife and two sons besides his aged parents. All the three vehicles were insured with the respondent No. 5.

(3.) THE learned Tribunal has discussed about the oral evidence on record in the presence of documentary piece of evidence and reached a conclusion that the version expressed by this appellant could not be probable. In the petition, it is stated by the appellant that at the place of accident, two lorries were kept parked on either side of the road leaving a narrow space which was not adequate for this petitioner's lorry to enter and pass both the lorries and that has constituted the reason for dashing against one of the lorries and, thereafter, the impact was made on the other lorry. However, he has stated before the Tribunal at the time of recording oral evidence to the effect that one of the lorries was going in front of his vehicle and it was abruptly stopped without showing any signal and hence, his lorry dashed against it. By referring to this oral testimony, the trial Judge has observed that it is not acceptable of the reasons that the inconsistent statement which is available in oral evidence is improved version from his original statement and hence, it is not true. Finally, he has anchored the liability for having caused the accident on this appellant and made him ineligible to get the compensation from the respondents.