Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2470 (MAD)

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajamanickam

2012-06-15

R.KARUPPIAH

body2012
Judgment :- 1. The appellant/2nd respondent-Insurance Company has filed this civil miscellaneous appeal praying for reduction of compensation as against the award dated 26.8.2003 made in MCOP.No.1838 of 2001 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Addl. District Court, Fast Track Court No.2), Salem. 2. The 1st respondent/claimant has filed claim petition before the Tribunal for compensation of Rs.2 lakhs for the injuries sustained by him in motor accident. It is the contention of the 1st respondent/claimant that on 16.8.2001 at about 6.50 pm, the claimant was travelling in his TVS 50 bearing Regn. No. TN 27 3420 in Yercaud-Salem Road and when he was nearing Central Prison Jailor's Quarters, a Car bearing Regn. No. TN 27 D 4577, belonging to 2nd Respondent herein/1st Respondent in O.P, came in the opposite direction at a great speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner and due to the accident, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries all over the body and he was taken and admitted in Salem Appusamy Hospital. The claimant has further contended that the accident was occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the abovesaid car and at the time of accident, the petitioner was 50 years and was working as Court Debadar and earning Rs.4000/-per month and therefore the claimant has claimed compensation of Rs.2 lakhs from the owner and insurer of the abovesaid car. 3. The second respondent-owner of the Car remained ex parte before the Tribunal. 4. The appellant-insurance company has contended before the Tribunal that the claimant should prove the age, income and the manner of accident and also contended that the claimant sustained only simple injuries and the insurance company of TVS 50 bearing Regn. No. TN 27 3420 is also necessary party since the accident was taken place because of negligence of the petitioner. 5. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimant, has examined two witnesses as PW.1 and PW.2 and marked 11 documents as Exs.P1 to P11 and on the side of the appellant/2nd respondent, has not examined any witness and not marked any document. 6. 5. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimant, has examined two witnesses as PW.1 and PW.2 and marked 11 documents as Exs.P1 to P11 and on the side of the appellant/2nd respondent, has not examined any witness and not marked any document. 6. Considering the oral and documentary evidence on the side of the claimant, the Tribunal has discussed in detail and held that the accident was occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the car driver and therefore the owner and insurer of the car are liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 7. With regard to compensation, the Tribunal has awarded on various heads as under: "Pain and suffering and Transportation - Rs.25,000.00 Medical expenses - Rs. 7,600.00 Permanent disability - Rs. 30,000.00 Rs.62,600.00 As against the abovesaid award, the claimant has not filed any appeal or cross-appeal. The second respondent-insurance company alone has filed this appeal only challenging the quantum of award passed by the Tribunal. 8. With regard to negligence aspect, on the side of the claimant/injured petitioner, he himself has deposed as PW.1 and also marked Exs.P1 and Ex.P6-copy of FIR, Ex.P2-discharge sheet, Ex.P3-scan report, Ex.P7-M.V.Report regarding TVS 50, Ex.P8-M.V.Report regarding car and Ex.P10 - copy of charge-sheet. No contra evidence was adduced on the side of the 2nd respondent herein and appellant, who are owner and insurer of the abovesaid car. 9. A careful reading of oral and documentary evidence of the claimant, it is clear that the accident was occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car as alleged in the claim petition and therefore the Tribunal has correctly held that the accident was occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car and therefore the owner and insurance company, who are respondents 1 and 2 in the O.P, are liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 10. With regard to quantum of compensation, as already discussed, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.62,600/-. The evidence of PW.1 and PW.2-Dr.J.Gurunathan, Ex.P5-wound certificate and MO.1 scan report reveal that the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries and due to injuries, he sustained 15% disability. 11. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/-for permanent disability. 10. With regard to quantum of compensation, as already discussed, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.62,600/-. The evidence of PW.1 and PW.2-Dr.J.Gurunathan, Ex.P5-wound certificate and MO.1 scan report reveal that the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries and due to injuries, he sustained 15% disability. 11. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/-for permanent disability. Considering the nature of injuries, treatment taken, disability of 15% and other factors, the abovesaid amount is not excessive as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant and therefore the Tribunal has correctly awarded Rs.30,000/- for permanent disability. With regard to medical expenses is concerned, the petitioner has filed Ex.P4-series of medical bills for Rs.7,599/-. Therefore the Tribunal has correctly awarded Rs.7,600/- for medical expenses. With regard to pain and suffering, transportation and loss of income during the treatment period, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/-. Considering the nature of injuries, period of treatment and other factor, the abovesaid amount is also reasonable amount and there is no need to interfere with the abovesaid finding. Therefore, the award of the Tribunal is correct and proper and no need to interfere with the same. 12. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed and the award and decree passed by the Tribunal is confirmed. No costs.