IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved on:

01.07.2021

Delivered on:

29.07.2021

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE TMT.JUSTICE S.KANNAMMAL

C.M.A.Nos.351 of 2018 & 1550 of 2021

and

C.M.P.No.8108 of 2021

C.M.A.No.351 of 2018:

Senthil Kumar

..Appellant/Petitioner

Vs.

1.Sundararasu

2.M/s.Sri Ram General Insurance Company Limited,

Chennai.

..Respondents/Respondents

C.M.A.No.1550 of 2021:

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited,

Chennai.

..Appellant/2^nd Respondent

Vs.

1.Senthil Kumar

2.Sundararasu

..Respondents/Petitioner/1^st Respondent

Common Prayer: These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed under

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the

Judgment and Decree dated 21.09.2017 made in M.C.O.P.No.177 of

2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram.

In C.M.A.No.351 of 2018:

For Appellant : Mr.A.Murugan

For R2

: Mr.S.Dhakshnamoorthy

In C.M.A.No.1550 of 2021:

For Appellant

: Mr.S.Dhakshnamoorthy

For R1

: Mr.A.Murugan

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

C O M M O N J U D G M E N T

(The matter is heard through “Video Conferencing/Hybrid mode”.)

These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been filed against

the award of the Tribunal dated

21.09.2017 made in

M.C.O.P.No.177 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Sub Court, Chidambaram.

2.Both the appeals arise out of the same accident and same

award and hence, they are disposed of by this common judgment.

The parties are referred to as per their respective ranks in the

claim petition for the sake of convenience.

3.The claimant filed the above said claim petition claiming

a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries

sustained by him in the accident that took place on 15.02.2010

against the respondents, being the owner and insurer of the

lorry respectively.

4.According to the claimant, on 15.02.2010 at about 20.30

hours, while he was travelling as cleaner in the lorry bearing

Registration No.TN 31 AY 8074 from Punnanchatram to

Sethiyathope, near Puliyur Cement Factory, one of the lorry tyre

got punctured and therefore, he and the driver removed the tyre

and changed the same. After changing the lorry tyre, the

claimant loaded the punctured tyre on the backside of the lorry

and at that time, the driver of the lorry without giving any

signal or without any reason, drove the lorry in the backward

direction and dashed against the claimant and caused the

accident. In the accident, the claimant sustained multiple

grievous injuries all over the body and immediately after the

accident, he was taken to G.H., Karur and was referred to G.H.,

Trichy, where he was taken treatment as inpatient from

16.02.2010 to 26.02.2010. Thereafter, he has taken treatment as

inpatient at Aravind Eye Hospital, Pondicherry from 03.03.2010

to 06.03.2010. He has taken treatment till filing of the claim

petition. Therefore, the claimant filed the above said claim

petition claiming a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation for

the injuries sustained by him against the respondents, being the

owner and insurer of the lorry respectively.

5.The 1^st respondent-owner of the lorry remained exparte

before the Tribunal.

6.The 2^nd

respondent-Insurance Company filed counter

statement and denied all the averments made by the claimant. The

2^nd respondent denied the manner of accident as alleged by the

claimant. The delay of 22 days in lodging the F.I.R. shows that

it is only an after thought for unlawful gain. At the time of

accident, the said lorry was not moving at all and it was a

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

stationed vehicle and the engine of the vehicle was also not

running at that time. The claimant got himself injured while he

was tightening the wheel nuts with wheel brace & lever for

replacing the punctured wheel of the said stationed lorry. The

Police complaint was preferred after 22 days