Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1636 (MAD)

M. Suryakumar v. Mani & Another

2004-12-02

A.R.RAMALINGAM, P.SATHASIVAM

body2004
Judgment :- P. Sathasivam, J. The claimant in M.C.O.P. No.236 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Erode, is the appellant in the above appeal. 2. In respect of the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 5.4.1988, he prayed for a compensation of Rs.25,000/-. Before the Tribunal, the injured claimant was himself examined as P.W.1, while the O.P. Chit issued by the Government Hospital, Erode was marked as Ex.P.1 and the First Information Report was marked as Ex.P.2. On the side of the Transport Corporation, the driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1. The Tribunal, after holding that the claimant had failed to establish that the accident was caused due to the negligent act of the driver of the Transport Corporation bus and in the absence of any evidence to prove the disablement of the claimant, dismissed the claim petition. Hence the appeal. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the contesting second respondent-Transport Corporation. 4. Insofar as the aspect of negligence is concerned, the evidence of the injured claimant is before the Court. He was examined as P.W.1. It was he who made a complaint to the police. The complaint/F.I.R. has been marked as Ex.P.2. In the F.I.R., Ex.P.2 and the evidence before the Court, it is stated that at the spot where the accident took place, an Ambassador car was stationed and that while overtaking the said car, the bus belonging to the Transport Corporation, coming from the opposite side, dashed against him and thereby he sustained the injury. On the other hand, the driver of the bus, who was examined as R.W.1, has stated that while overtaking the stationary car, the cyclist tumbled and fell down near the right side of the bus. In other words, according to the driver, he was not negligent and responsible for the accident. On going through the evidence of P.W.1 and R.W.1 and after perusing the only other document Ex.P.2, viz. the F.I.R., in the absence of any other acceptable evidence, the Tribunal rejected the case of the claimant and found that there is no material to show that the driver of the bus was negligent and responsible for the accident. After analyzing the evidence on record, we are also in agreement with the said conclusion. 5. the F.I.R., in the absence of any other acceptable evidence, the Tribunal rejected the case of the claimant and found that there is no material to show that the driver of the bus was negligent and responsible for the accident. After analyzing the evidence on record, we are also in agreement with the said conclusion. 5. In the light of the conclusion on the aspect of negligence, the only other issue to be considered is whether the appellant/claimant is entitled to any amount under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Tribunal, though referred to Ex.P.1, the O.P. Chit issued by the Government Hospital, Erode and the evidence of P.W.1, after noting that in the absence of any evidence to prove the permanent disablement of the claimant in the form of a certificate, rejected the claim even under the 'No Fault Liability'. 6. We have verified Ex.P.1 issued by the Government Hospital, Erode. The hospital record refers to the injury as, "# Shaft of Humerus (L)". Apart from this, it has to be noted that Ex.P.1 also shows that the injured claimant/appellant was admitted in the hospital on 5.4.1988 and discharged only on 14.4.1988 at 7 pm. If the claimant had not sustained fracture or a serious injury, there is no need for the hospital authorities to keep him as an in-patient nearly for a period of nine days. Taking note of the same and the specific reference in Ex.P.1, we are of the view that the appellant/claimant is entitled to the amount under 'No Fault Liability' as provided for under unamended Section 140(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. As per the unamended provision, the claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.7,500/- under the 'No Fault Liability' clause. The said amount will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit. 7. The appeal is allowed in part, to the extent indicated above. However, there will be no order as to costs.