The main legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of the Workmens Compensation Act in cases where the tortfeasor himself or any other person claiming under the tortfeasor is not entitled to compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

The appellant is 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 traffic accident which happened on 22.04.1996.

2. In the petition the following are stated:-

.3. The petitioner was employed as driver by 3rd and 4th respondents and was earning more than Rs.3,000/- per month in average as salary and batta. On 22.04.1996, the petitioner was driving the vehicle bearing Regn.No.TN-04 A-2349 from Sethiathope to GST near Vikravandi. Two vehicles bearing registration No.TN-72 Z-7336 and TN-04 B2529, 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 bread winner of the family having wife and two sons besides his aged parents. All the three vehicles were insured with the fifth respondent.

4. In the counter filed by the fifth respondent, it is stated that the petitioner has to independently establish the fact that the vehicle was covered by valid policy. This respondent denies that the vehicle owners had valid permit FC and RC at the time of accident. The drivers of the vehicles did not have valid driving license at the time of accident. The petitioner has not stated how and in which manner other drivers were negligent in parking vehicles. The accident was not due to the wrong parking of the vehicles. The income of the deceased is denied. The other particulars as to his health and responsibilities towards his family and his injuries are also not admitted. He did not sustain any disability as described. The amount of compensation claimed is excessive and hence the petition has to be dismissed.

5. Two persons by name Guruvayurappan (a) Guru (a) Gurumurthy and one Thirunavukkarasu were travelling in the ill fated lorry driven by this appellant at the time of accident and in the accident both of them died. Their dependents filed two other claim petitions in M.C.O.P.No.375 of 1996 and 155 of 1997 respectively claiming compensation for their death. While granting compensation in the said two claim petitions, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition filed by this appellant by observing that this appellant being the tort-feaser i.e. he himself caused the accident by means of his negligence, he is not entitled to receive any compensation from the respondents. The said order of the Tribunal is under challenge before this court in this appeal.

.6. The learned Tribunal Judge 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 petitioners 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 for 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 responde