Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1606 (MAD)

Ramakrishnan v. K. Shankar & Another

2004-11-29

A.R.RAMALINGAM, P.SATHASIVAM

body2004
Judgment :- P.Sathasivam, J. Claimant in M.C.O.P.No.175 of 1995 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Villupuram is the appellant. In respect of grievous injuries sustained in the road accident that took place on 21.5.1990, the Claimant prayed for a compensation of Rs.4,72,000/-. 2. Before the Tribunal, the injured Claimant himself was examined as PW-1 and four more witnesses have been examined as Pws.2 to 5, besides marking voluminous documents Exs.P-1 to P-129. On the side of the owner of the vehicle and Insurance Company, no oral and documentary evidence was let in. The Tribunal, after holding that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the driver of the car, passed the award for Rs.2,01,600/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Regarding the disallowed claim, the Claimant has preferred this appeal and restricted his claim to the extent of Rs.87,000/-. 3. The respondents viz., owner and the Insurer, though duly served notice from this Court, have not chosen to contest the appeal by engaging counsel. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant fairly states that though in the grounds of memorandum of appeal challenge has been made with reference to the disallowed portion in all other heads, at the time of arguments, confined that the appeal is only with regard to the disallowed portion relating to 'Transport Charges'. 4. It is seen that initially at the time of filing of the claim petition under the head 'Transport Charges', the Claimant has prayed a sum of Rs.1,000/-. Subsequently, pending O.P., in view of the continuous treatment he had to travel from Madhiyanur to Chennai and after collection of required documents, got the Claim Petition amended and as per the amended petition, the Claimant has prayed for a sum of Rs.73,000/- towards 'Transport Charges'. As stated earlier, in view of the limited issue raised, there is no need to traverse into the other factual details either relating to the negligence or quantum. 5. As stated earlier, in view of the limited issue raised, there is no need to traverse into the other factual details either relating to the negligence or quantum. 5. In support of his claim that the Claimant is entitled to the sum of Rs.73,000/- towards Transportation Charges, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant brought to our notice various injuries sustained by the Claimant due to the accident, fracture of bones, the evidence of Dr.R.Angamuthu - PW.4 and various documents issued by hospitals viz., Government Hospital at Villupuram, Government Hospital at Cuddalore and Vijaya Hospital at Chennai. We have perused the oral evidence and also considered the documents issued by the said hospital authorities. In so far as the claim regarding Transport Charges, PW-1 - injured Claimant in his evidence asserted that he made 52 visits from Madhiyanur - his native village to Chennai Vijaya Hospital for treatment. It is also his claim that on every occasion he travelled in Taxi, for which he spent considerable amount. In order to prove the same, PW-1 has produced receipts issued by the Taxi driver - PW-5. Those receipts have been marked as Ex.P-129 series. Though the Tribunal considered the said aspect after noting that in the said receipts the name of the injured Claimant does not find a place, refused to accept and rely on the same. However, taking note of the nature of injuries and length of treatment from three hospitals, granted a sum of Rs.10,000/-. 6. In the light of the claim relating to Transport Charges, we perused the evidence of PW-1 - Claimant, PW-5 - Taxi Driver and Ex.P-129 series. On going through the same, though in the receipts issued by PW-5 there is no specific reference to the name of the Claimant, by analysing the same along with other materials produced by the Claimant, particularly the nature of injuries and length of treatment, we are of the view that the Claim made under 'Transport charges' cannot be rejected as done by the Tribunal. We have already referred to the assertion of PW-1 and corroborative statement of PW-5, who is none else than the Taxi Driver, who issued receipts Ex.P-129 series. In these circumstances, we accept the claim relating to Transport Charges and disagree with the contrary conclusion arrived by the Tribunal. 7. We have already referred to the assertion of PW-1 and corroborative statement of PW-5, who is none else than the Taxi Driver, who issued receipts Ex.P-129 series. In these circumstances, we accept the claim relating to Transport Charges and disagree with the contrary conclusion arrived by the Tribunal. 7. Accordingly, in addition to the amount granted by the Tribunal, we grant further sum of Rs.63,000/- towards Transport Charges, which amount will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The said amount shall be paid by the respondent, the second respondent - United India Insurance Company, at the first instance. 8. The appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated above. No costs.