Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1212 (MAD)

Loganathan v. Venkatesan & Others

2010-03-23

C.S.KARNAN

body2010
Judgment :- 1. The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/petitioner against the Award and Decree, dated 07.09.2004, made in M.C.O.P.No.820 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District and Sessions Court, Fast Track Court No.II, Ranipet, awarding a compensation of Rs.40,000/- with 6% interest per annum, from the date of filing petition till the date of payment of compensation. 2. Aggrieved by the said Award and Decree, the appellant/petitioner has filed the above appeal praying to set aside the said award and decree passed by the Tribunal and enhance the award amount from Rs.40,000/- to 5,00,000/-. 3. The short facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner, Loganathan, aged about 25 years, working as an Assistant at BHEL Company at Ranipet. At the time of accident, he was earning a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month. On 22.02.1990, the petitioner was standing on the high road, near Palar Club, at Ranipet, when the first respondent drove a Jeep bearing registration No.TNJ 7103 in a rash and negligent manner without following the traffic rules and as a result the first respondent hit the petitioner, resulting that the petitioner sustained a cut injury on his left leg, the right ear was cut down and injuries all over the body. Immediately, he was rushed to Christian Medical College Hospital, Vellore. Thereafter, he had undergone treatment at Bone Clinic, Puttur. Hence, he claimed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation against the 1st to 5th respondents. The said accident was registered by SIPCOT Police Station. 4. The third respondent/New India Insurance Co., Ltd., has filed a counter statement and opposed the petitioners crime case. The respondent denies the petitioners age, income and occupation. The respondent further denies that the petitioner sustained grievious injuries all over his body and also incurring medical expenses of Rs.30,000/-. The respondent further denies that the vehicle involved in the accident was insured with this respondents Insurance Company. The petitioner has not furnished the insurance particulars. The petitioner has to prove that at the time of accident, the driver had possessed a valid driving licence. The respondent learns that the accident had happened due to the negligent driving of the petitioner. The petitioner claimed a compensation on various heads are not pertinent. 5. The petitioner has not furnished the insurance particulars. The petitioner has to prove that at the time of accident, the driver had possessed a valid driving licence. The respondent learns that the accident had happened due to the negligent driving of the petitioner. The petitioner claimed a compensation on various heads are not pertinent. 5. The fifth respondent/United India Insurance Co., Ltd., has also filed a counter statement and resisted the claim petition stating that the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-claimed by the petitioner is not maintainable either in law or in facts. The petitioner has to prove his age, occupation, income and physical health prior to the accident. The respondent denies that the petitioner is continuing treatment and spent a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards medical expenses. The respondent further denies that on 22.02.1990 at about 12.30 noon, on the high road, near Palar Club at Ranipet, the first respondent had driven the jeep in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the petitioner, who was standing at the edge of the road. Actually, the accident had happened due to the negligence of the petitioner. As such, the respondents are not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant. In any event, this respondents liability is statutory limited, subject to the policy conditions. Therefore, the respondent fifth respondent prays to dismiss the claim petition. 6. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed three issues for the consideration namely: (i) Whether the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent? (ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any claim? (iii) If so, how much? 7. The PW1 had adduced evidence stating that on 22.02.1990, at about 12.30 noon, the accident occurred near the Palar Club in BHEL. At the time of accident, he was working as an Assistant in the BHEL at Ranipet. When, he was standing on the edge of the Highway road, the driver of the jeep dashed against his scooter and he was pulled down, sustaining serious injuries. Hence, a case was registered against the driver of the jeep. The FIR marked as Ex.P1. 8. When, he was standing on the edge of the Highway road, the driver of the jeep dashed against his scooter and he was pulled down, sustaining serious injuries. Hence, a case was registered against the driver of the jeep. The FIR marked as Ex.P1. 8. One Kesavan, Development Officer in the third respondent/New India Insurance Co., Ltd., stated in his evidence that on the date of the accident, the jeep was not insured with them, but it was insured with the fifth respondent respondent/United India Insurance Co., Ltd., as such the said claim petition is not maintainable against the third respondent. 9. The fifth respondent had not adduced any evidence and denied the accident. As such, the Tribunal had concluded that the accident is proved. Hence, the fifth respondent is liable to pay compensation. 10. The petitioner has stated in his evidence that he was taken to the BHEL Hospital, immediately after the accident. Thereafter he was referred to CMC Hospital, wherein he was treated for three weeks as an inpatient. After his discharge, he suffered from seizures and fits. He spent about Rs.2,00,000/-on his treatment,he was on medical leave for treatment and he spent a sum of Rs.20,000/-for transport expenses. In total, the petitioner claimed a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. The claimant marked Ex.P2, the Medical Report, which reveals that the petitioner was admitted at the CMC Hospital, for three weeks from the date of accident ie.22.02.1990. Further, the petitioner stated that he had undergone traumatic brain seizure; that he was suffering from epilepsy. The petitioner has marked Ex.P3-Leave Application and Ex.P4-Driving Licence of the petitioner. It is seen that the petitioner was granted medical leave and all his medical expenses were met by his company. 11. After considering, the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has pointed out that there is no discharge summary and no permanent disability. There is no income loss, no medical expenses and no reason adduced by the petitioner for claiming compensation under the above circumstances. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.35,000/- for pain and suffering and Rs.5,000/-the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- for transport expenses and extra nourishment. There is no income loss, no medical expenses and no reason adduced by the petitioner for claiming compensation under the above circumstances. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.35,000/- for pain and suffering and Rs.5,000/-the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- for transport expenses and extra nourishment. In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- as compensation to the petitioner together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation. The Tribunal directed the fifth respondent to deposit the compensation amount within a period of two months from the date of its order. The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,500/- and no order against the third respondent/New India Insurance Co., Ltd., 12. Not satisfied with the said Award and Decree, dated 07.09.2004, in M.C.O.P.No.820 of 2002, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District and Sessions Court, Fast Track Court No.II, Ranipet, the petitioner filed the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal for enhancement of compensation for another sum of Rs.4,60,000/- with interest and costs. 13. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the claimant had undergone treatment for more than three weeks in the CMC Hospital, Vellore as an inpatient. Initially he underwent treatment at the BHEL Hospital, Ranipet. The Tribunal has failed to note that the appellant was a patient suffering seizures and fits every now and again, besides he sustained grievious injuries. The learned counsel further argued that the claimant spent a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-for medical expenses. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/-under the head of pain and suffering, transport and nutrition, which are all on the lower side. 15. Learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent argued that the claimant is an employer at the BHEL Ranipet. So he availed the medical services from the said company. On that head, he is not entitled to get compensation. The learned counsel further vehemently argued that no Doctor evidence and Disability Certificate have been produced to prove the nature of injuries and mode of treatment. As such, the claimant is not entitled to get any more compensation against the respondent Insurance Company and the the award granted by the Tribunal is proper and fair. As such, the appeal is not maintainable. 16. As such, the claimant is not entitled to get any more compensation against the respondent Insurance Company and the the award granted by the Tribunal is proper and fair. As such, the appeal is not maintainable. 16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the view that considering the claimant was on medical leave for six months as per Ex.P3 ie.leave sanction letter for six months. So, the claimant is entitled to get loss of income. Under the head of loss of income, this Court grants a sum of Rs.18,000/-. As per the claimants evidence, after the said accident, he was suffering from epilepsy. Hence he is devoid of pleasure in the normal way. So, the Court grants a sum of Rs.10,000/-under the head of displeasure. In total, this Court grants a sum of Rs.28,000/-as additional compensation amount to the appellant/petitioner, together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation. 17. Therefore, this Court directs the fourth respondent/United India Insurance Co., Ltd., to deposit the said additional compensation amount of Rs.28,000/-together with interest observed above within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order, into the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.820 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District and Sessions Court, Fast Track Court No.II, Ranipet. 18. After the said deposit being made to the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.820 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District and Sessions Court, Fast Track Court No.II, Ranipet, it is open to the claimant to withdraw the entire compensation amount with accrued interest thereon, after filing necessary payment out application in accordance with law. 19. In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the Award and Decree, dated 07.09.2004, in M.C.O.P.No.820 of 2002, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District and Sessions Court, Fast Track Court No.II, Ranipet, is modified. There shall be no order as to costs.