Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1584 (MAD)

Vatsala & Others v. Meenakshi & Others

2004-11-25

A.R.RAMALINGAM, P.SATHASIVAM

body2004
Judgment :- P. Sathasivam, J. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim petition M.A.C.O.P.No.16/90 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Villupuram, the claimants there in filed the above appeal. 2. Initially, the first claimant by name S. Purushothaman sustained serious injuries in a motor accident, that took place on 2.9.89, while he was travelling with others in an Ambassador Car bearing Registration No:TMT 6103. It is his further claim that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the driver of the mini lorry bearing Registration No: TDZ 6437. It is further seen that on 17.1.1994, the first claimant, who suffered injuries in the said accident, died. On application, his viz., wife, handicapped daughter, son and another daughter were brought on record as his legal heirs and they pursued the claim petition filed by S. Purushothaman. 3. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, on consideration of the materials placed, arrived at a conclusion that the accident was caused due to the negligent act of the driver of the mini lorry. The said finding has become final. The Tribunal, after finding that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the mini lorry driver, in the absence of acceptable evidence that the injured Purushothaman died due to injuries, said to have been sustained in the accident, dismissed their claim, hence the present appeal. 4. Now we are concerned with the only question whether the appellants are entitled any compensation. Even at the outset, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, the third respondent herein would submit that inasmuch as there is no positive evidence to show that the injured S. Purushothaman died due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellants are not entitled any compensation except the actual expenses incurred by the said Purushothaman for his treatment. In support of the above contention, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has also relied on a judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court reported in 2000 IV CTC 528 (The Managing Director, Pandian Roadways Corporation vs S. Rajalakshmi). 5. In support of the above contention, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has also relied on a judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court reported in 2000 IV CTC 528 (The Managing Director, Pandian Roadways Corporation vs S. Rajalakshmi). 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, by taking the evidence of P.W.2, who is a doctor as well as the person accompanied the injured Purushothaman at the time of the accident, and his Certificate Ex.P.5, would contend that since there is ample evidence to the effect that the death was due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellants are entitled compensation as claimed. 6. In order to appreciate the above contention, it is useful to refer the evidence of P.W.2. It is seen that at the relevant time, he was a Civil Surgeon Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Tindivanam. It was he who accompanied the said Purushothaman in the same car. The following statement in his chief examination are relevant: The following evidence in his cross examination is also relevant: 7. He has also issued Certificate Ex.P.5. The careful analysis of evidence of P.W.2, who is none else than the doctor in Government Service and the person, accompanied the injured at the relevant time, shows that the said Purushothaman sustained head injury and due to which there was blood clot and the nervous system has been damaged, due to the same, he was bedridden and he has also found that due to head injury, the said Purushothaman died after four years. He also denied the suggestion that it would not be possible for the injured to have paralytic attack for any other ailment or reason. 8. It is not in dispute that there is no contra evidence to the evidence of P.W.2 and Ex.P.5. In the case cited by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, we found that there is no such evidence and in our case, we cannot ignore the evidence of P.W.2, particularly in the absence of any contra evidence. 9. Accordingly, we hold that the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is not applicable to the case on hand. In the light of overwhelming evidence of P.W.2, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has committed an error in not properly considering the same. 9. Accordingly, we hold that the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is not applicable to the case on hand. In the light of overwhelming evidence of P.W.2, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has committed an error in not properly considering the same. Inasmuch as though the legal heirs of Purushothaman impleaded themselves and pursued the claim petition, they have not amended various claims made in the claim petition and the original claim of Rs.50,000/- stands. 10. In such circumstances, in the light of the evidence referred above, we hold that the claimants/appellants are entitled for the said amount of Rs.50,000/-. The said amount will carry interest at the rate of 9% from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Considering the fact that the first appellant is a widow of Purushothaman and the second appellant is a handicapped daughter of Purushothaman, we permit them alone to withdraw 50% each. 11. The appeal is allowed. No costs.