This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/claimant against the Judgment and Decree made in M.C.O.P.No.35 of 2002, dated 30.08.2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Kuzhithalai.
2.The brief facts of the case are that on 23.03.2002, at about 21.00 hours, in Trichy-Karur Main Road at Krishnarayapuram, near Bhagavathiyamman Kovil, the driver of the first respondent drove the lorry bearing Registration No.KL-9-H-3369, insured with the second respondent/United India Insurance Company, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against two persons, who were standing on the extreme left side of the road near their house and dashed against the house of the appellant/claimant and stopped. As a result of which, the appellant/claimant's house was damaged fully and walls were also damaged and estimated the same for the value of Rs.1,25,000/-. The said house is the only residential house of the appellant/claimant and he claimed that it is a newly constructed one. Hence, the appellant/claimant filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.35 of 2002 dated 30.08.2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Kuzhithalai, seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the damage of his residential house.
3.The second respondent/United India Insurance Company filed counter- affidavit and denied the nature of claim made by the appellant/claimant in the claim petition and further stated that the appellant/claimant should prove that the driver of the vehicle, allegedly involved in the accident, had a valid driving licence on the date of accident to drive the particular vehicle and hence prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
4.The first respondent/owner of the vehicle remained ex-parte before the Tribunal.
5.Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimant, two witness viz., P.W.1-Raju (claimant) and P.W.2-Velusamy (Building Engineer) were examined and four documents viz., Ex.P.1-F.I.R, Ex.P.2-report of the Engineer, Ex.P.3- House Tax receipt and Ex.P.4-certificate of the Engineer-Velusamy issued by the Department of Technical Education and on the side of the second respondent, neither witness was examined nor document was marked to prove their contention.
6.The Tribunal, after considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence and arguments of the learned counsel appearing on either side and also appreciating the evidence on record, dismissed the claim petition.
7.Against the dismissal of the claim petition, the appellant/claimant has filed the present appeal.
8.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/United India Insurance Company and perused the materials available on record.
9.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant would vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in dismissing the petition without appreciating the evidences and Exhibits and the Tribunal had failed to consider Exs.A.1 to A.3, which would clearly establish the occurrence of accident and damages to the property and further submitted that Tribunal ought to have held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent on considering both the oral and documentary evidence of the appellant/claimant.
10.The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/United India Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal, after considering both the oral and documentary evidences available on record, has rightly dismissed the claim petition.
11.From the perusal of the materials available, it is seen that the claimant was examined as P.W.1 and building Engineer was examined as P.W.2 and Exs.P.1 to P.4 were marked. From the close reading of the F.I.R-Ex.P.1, it is seen that there was no mention about the damage caused to the house by the driver of the first respondent and further it is seen in the F.I.R that the lorry dashed infront of the house and stopped and this fact was mentioned in the F.I.R, which reads as follows ? ..... mg;nghJ fUh; to jpUr;rp nuhl;oy; nkw;nfapUe;J fpHf;F nehf;fp nf.vy;.9-b+r;-3369 vd;w yhhpia mjd; oiuth; mjpntfkhft[k;> ftdFiwthft[k; Xl;o te;J nkw;go gftjpak;kd; nfhtpy; mUfpy; epd;W ngrpf;bfhz;oUe;j utp btq;flhryk; Mfpnahh;fs; kPJ nkhjp ,oj;J fPnH js;sp tpl;L nkw;go yhhp Kd;dhy; mUfpy; ,Ue;j uh$FU vd;gtuJ tPl;od; Kd; ,oj;J epd;W tpl;lJ.?
12.From perusal of P.W.2, it is seen that he has stated that the lorry dashed against the building and it was completely damaged from the roof to bottom at all sides and for reconstruction a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- was required and he has also filed Ex.P.2 and the certificate issued by the Department of Technical Education has been marked as Ex.P.4. From perusal of Ex.P.2 it is seen that the document has been prepared only for the purpose of the case and no photographs were produced on the side of the appellant/claimant to show that the house has been damaged. In view of the above materials, it is clear that the house was not damaged and no photographs were produced. If really his house was damaged, immediately he would have filed a complaint before the Police Station and initiated legal proceedings. The F.I.R is given by some other person and not given by the appellant/claimant would show that it is an afterthought to claim some compensation. In the absence of any evidence to show that the lorry hitting the wall and the house has been damaged, this Court finds that the appellant/claimant has failed to prove his case with valid proof and the claim has to be rejected. Since the finding of the Tribunal that the appellant/claimant is not entitled to the compensation and dismissed the claim petition, this Court feels that the same is acceptable and the dismissal of the claim petition is correct.
13.In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no error in the finding of the Tribunal. Hence, there is no infirmity or irregularity in the award passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal deserves to be dismissed.
14.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the Judgment and Decree made in M.C.O.P.No.35 of 2002 dated 30.08.2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Kuzhithalai, is hereby confirmed. No costs.
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Kuzhithalai.
2.The Record Keeper, V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
.