Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2231 (MAD)

C. P. Krishnan v. K. Gokulan

2012-06-05

R.KARUPPIAH

body2012
Judgment :- 1. This Appeal is preferred against the Award and Decree dated 6.10.2004 in M.C.O.P.No.281 of 2000 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Dharmapuri. 2. The Respondent/Petitioner has filed a claim petition before the Tribunal against the appellants, claiming compensation for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for injuries sustained by him in an accident occurred on 24.4.1999 due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver of the first appellant. 3. The case of the Respondent/Petitioner is that on 24.4.1999 at about 6.30 A.M. while the petitioner was returning from Palayampudur to Nallampalli in the Salem Dharmapuri Main Road, riding his Motor Cycle bearing the Regn.No.29-C-1765, observing the road rules prescribed, keeping extreme left side of the road in front of the Tempo bearing TN-29-C-0104 and when he was nearing Pagalahalli Society, the driver of the Tempo all of a sudden, without any indication of light, applied brake and stopped the Tempo. Because of that the petitioner's vehicle dashed from behind the tempo. As a result of which the petitioner's TVS-Suzuki vehicle was completely damaged. The petitioner sustained injuries on head, right side eye-lid, face and both legs in the knee portion. The petitioner was immediately admitted as in-patient in Government Head Quarters Hospital, Dharmapuri. The age of the Respondent/Petitioner on the date of occurrence is 27 years and the occupation of the Respondent/Petitioner was own agriculture, money lending and seasonal business and earned Rs.5,000/- per month and the Petitioner claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- from the appellants on various heads. 4. Before the Tribunal, the second appellant alone filed counter and contested the case in which it is contended that the accident took place only due to the fault of the petitioner who was riding motorcycle TN–29-C-1765 in a rash and negligent manner, hit behind the foregoing Tempo TN–29-C–0104 and therefore the accident was occurred only due to the negligent driving of the motorcycle by the Petitioner. The claim of compensation also excessive. 5. Before the Tribunal on the side of the Petitioner, injured Petitioner alone was examined as P.W.1 and marked five documents as Exs. P1 to P5. On the side of the Respondents no witness has been examined and no document has been marked. The claim of compensation also excessive. 5. Before the Tribunal on the side of the Petitioner, injured Petitioner alone was examined as P.W.1 and marked five documents as Exs. P1 to P5. On the side of the Respondents no witness has been examined and no document has been marked. On consideration of oral evidence of P.W.1 and the documents Exs.P1 to P5 marked on the side of the Petitioner, the Tribunal has held that the accident was occurred only due to the negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver of the first Respondent/1st appellant and further held that both the appellants/Respondents who are the owner of the vehicle and the insurer of the vehicle are liable to pay compensation to the Petitioner/Respondent. In so far as the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal has passed the Award for pain and sufferings a sum of Rs.20,000/-, transportation Rs.3,000/-, Medical Expenses Rs.17,000/- for nature of injuries Rs.20,000/- and totally awarded Rs.60,000/-. 6. As against the above said Award, the Respondent/Petitioner has not filed any appeal or cross-appeal. The Appellants who are the Respondents 1 and 2 in the above said Original Petition alone, have filed this appeal by contending that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate that when two vehicles are involved in the accident both the vehicles should be made parties to the proceedings and failed to do so, the claim should have been dismissed in limini for non joinder and mis-joinder of proper and necessary parties and the Tribunal has erred in coming to the conclusion that the Tempo alone has caused the accident and the Tribunal has failed to note that the petitioner driving his vehicle should have given sufficient space between the ongoing vehicle while following the same. Further contended that the Tribunal has rejected the FIR Ex.P1 on the ground that the driver of the Tempo has not been examined. Therefore, the appellants prayed for setting aside the above said Award. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the Respondent. 8. Further contended that the Tribunal has rejected the FIR Ex.P1 on the ground that the driver of the Tempo has not been examined. Therefore, the appellants prayed for setting aside the above said Award. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the Respondent. 8. The learned counsel for the Respondent/Petitioner would contend that on the side of the Respondent/Petitioner the Petitioner-injured was examined as eye-witness to the occurrence and he has clearly deposed that the accident was occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver of the first respondent and no contra oral evidence was let in on the side of the appellants/Respondents and the alleged FIR Ex.P1 was given by one Mahendralingam who is a third party, but he was not examined as a witness on the side of the appellants/Respondents and further, the FIR contains only information about the accident and the criminal judgment itself is not binding the Tribunal and hence, the Tribunal has correctly held that the accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver of the first Respondent and also the injured petitioner alone deposed before the Tribunal as eye witness with regard to the manner of accident occurred and no contra evidence was let in on the side of the appellants/Respondents and therefore, the Tribunal has correctly held that the accident occurred only due to negligent driving of the driver of the first appellant. 9. In contra the learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the averments in the FIR itself reveal that the petitioner/Respondent also contributed the accident since he has not given sufficient gap between the ongoing vehicle and therefore, the petitioner/Respondent also contributed the accident. As already discussed above, the alleged complainant has not been examined as a witness on the side of the appellants/Respondents and no reason has been stated for not examined him as a witness. Further, the averments in the FIR alone cannot be taken as proof of all allegations in the above said document. In this case, P.W.1-the injured has clearly deposed that the accident was occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver of the first appellant/first Respondent, as stated in the petition. Further, the averments in the FIR alone cannot be taken as proof of all allegations in the above said document. In this case, P.W.1-the injured has clearly deposed that the accident was occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver of the first appellant/first Respondent, as stated in the petition. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver of the first appellant/first Respondent and hence, there is no need to interfere in the above said findings regarding negligence. 10. In so far as quantum of compensation, on the side of the Respondent/Petitioner it is contended that the Respondent/Petitioner has sustained several grievous injuries and due to the injuries he sustained disability. However, as rightly discussed by the Tribunal, the Respondent/Petitioner has not examined any doctor and marked any document to prove the alleged disability and hence correctly the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards permanent disability. Any how, as per Ex.P2-Wound Certificate and Ex.P5-Medical Bills, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the Respondent/Petitioner has sustained several injuries and also taking treatment, awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- under the head "nature of injuries" and the Tribunal has discussed about the Ex.P5-Medical Bills and awarded compensation of Rs.17,000/-towards medical expenses and also awarded Rs.3,000/-towards transportation to the hospital. considering injuries and treatment taken by the petitioner/respondent, the above said amount awarded by the Tribunal is not excessive, as alleged by the appellants. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering and considering the nature of injuries sustained by the Respondent/Petitioner, the Tribunal correctly fixed and awarded Rs.20,000/-for the above said head. Therefore, the amount awarded by the Tribunal for pain and suffering Rs.20,000/-, for medical expenses Rs.17,000/- for transportation to hospital Rs.3,000/- and for injuries Rs.20,000/- totally awarded Rs.60,000/-, is not excessive and no need to interfere in the above said findings of the Tribunal. 11. In the result, the Award passed by the Tribunal is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. No costs. 11. In the result, the Award passed by the Tribunal is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. No costs. The learned counsel appearing on both sides admitted that as per the directions of this Court the entire Award amount has been deposited and 50% of the Award amount along with accrued interest has already been withdrawn by the Respondent/Petitioner. The Respondent/Petitioner is permitted to withdraw the remaining 50% of the Award amount along with accrued interest.