Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 141 (MAD)

R. Anantha Padmanaban v. M. P. Lakshmi

2013-01-07

C.S.KARNAN

body2013
Judgment :- 1. The appellant/petitioner has preferred the present appeal in C.M.A.(MD).No.91 of 2004, against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.33 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kulithalai. 2. The petitioner, has filed the claim in M.C.O.P.No.33 of 2001, claiming a compensation of a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-from the respondents, for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident. It was submitted that on 21.08.2000, at about 02.00 a.m. in the night, when the petitioner was travelling in the 1st respondents Ambassador car bearing registration No.TMR-8971, along with one R.Purushothaman, from Thottiyam to Chennai and when the car was proceeding near Mangalam Cross road, the driver of the car drove the car at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed it against the lorry bearing registration No.BY-01B-5199, coming in the opposite direction. Due to the head on collision between the two vehicles, the petitioner sustained injuries all over his body and was admitted at the Tindivanam Government Hospital. Subsequently, he took treatment, as an inpatient, at Vijaya Health Centre, Chennai, from 21.08.2000 to 05.10.2000 and latter on took treatment as an outpatient from 06.10.2000 onwards. The petitioner has spent over Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses. After the accident, the petitioner is not able to do any work as he used to do before the accident. At prior to the accident, the petitioner was employed as an Agriculturist and also worked as an operator of film reels and earning Rs.5,200/-per month. Hence, the petitioner has filed the claim as against the 1st and 2nd respondents, who are the owner and insurer of the car bearing registration No.TMR-8971. 3. The 2nd respondent, in his counter has submitted that the driver of the 1st respondent's car drove the car carefully and cautiously and that while driving the car, the driver of the car had seen a big stone on the left side of the road and that the car driver had given all the indications that he was moving the car to the right side of the road and that inspite of this, the driver of the lorry against the car. It was submitted that the accident was caused only due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry. It was submitted that the accident was caused only due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry. It was submitted that even though these factual details regarding manner of accident was known to the petitioner, he had not added the owner and insurer of the lorry as necessary parties in the claim. The averments in the claim regarding age, income and occupation of the petitioner and the disability sustained by the petitioner was also not admitted. It was submitted that the claim was excessive. 4. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed two issues for consideration in the case namely: (1) Due to whose negligence was the accident caused?; (2) What is the quantum of compensation which the petitioner is entitled to get?. 5. On the petitioner's side, the petitioner was examined as PW.1 and fifteen documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P15 namely: Ex.P1-F.I.R; Ex.P2-rough sketch; Exs.P3 and P4-Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report; Ex.P5-Criminal Court judgment; Ex.P6-statement; Ex.P7-Doctor's statement; Ex.P8-discharge summary; Exs.P9 and P10-medical bills; Ex.P11-cash receipt; Ex.P12-scan receipt; Exs.P13 and P14-receipts; Ex.P15-clinical reports. On the respondents side, no witness and no documents. 6. PW.1, the petitioner had adduced evidence which is corroborative of the statements given in his complaint regarding manner of accident and in support of his evidence he had marked Ex.P1, F.I.R; and Ex.P2-rough sketch. The tribunal, on scrutiny of evidence of PW.1 and on examination of Ex.P1 observed that the charge sheet has been filed only against the driver of the 1st respondent's car. On scrutiny of rough sketch marked as Ex.P2, the tribunal observed that the accident had been caused only due to the negligence of the 1st respondent's car driver and hence held the insurer of the car i.e., the 2nd respondent liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. 7. Though the petitioner, had adduced evidence that he had initially taken treatment at Tindivanam Government Hospital and subsequently took treatment, as an inpatient, at Vijaya Health Centre, Chennai, from 21.08.2000 to 05.10.2000, no medical records had been marked by him to show that he had received treatment at Tindivanam Government Hospital. The Tribunal observed that the name of the petitioner had not been mentioned in the F.I.R marked as Ex.P1. As such, the Tribunal opined that the petitioner had failed to prove that he had sustained the said injuries only in the above accident by not producing the relevant records. The Tribunal observed that the name of the petitioner had not been mentioned in the F.I.R marked as Ex.P1. As such, the Tribunal opined that the petitioner had failed to prove that he had sustained the said injuries only in the above accident by not producing the relevant records. Further, the Tribunal observed that the petitioner had also failed to produce documentary evidence to show that he had travelled as a passenger in the said car. The Tribunal further opined that if the charge sheet had been filed and the petitioner had been shown as a witness in the said charge sheet, it could be taken that the petitioner had travelled a passenger in the said car. However, the Tribunal observed that the petitioner had not marked the charge sheet, to prove this contention. It has been mentioned in Ex.P8, discharge summary that the petitioner has sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident but no mention has been made in the discharge summary, that the hospital authorities had informed about the accident to the police department. It is seen that the case, regarding the accident had been filed at Olakkur Police Station nut no mention has been made in the police records to show that the petitioner had sustained injuries in the said accident. Hence, the Tribunal, on scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence held that sufficient documentary evidence had not been furnished by the petitioner to prove that he had sustained the injuries in the said accident and hence dismissed the claim petition. 8. Aggrieved by the dismissal of his claim, the petitioner has preferred the present appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the tribunal erred in coming to the conclusion that the name of the appellant was not mentioned in the F.I.R. It was contended that the tribunal failed to see that Purushothaman's statement before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tindivanam, which was marked as Ex.P6, will clearly establish the fact that the petitioner was injured in the accident. It was pointed out that the tribunal failed to appreciate the documents marked as Exs.P7 and P15, which well establish that the appellant suffered serious injury only because of the accident. It was pointed out that the tribunal failed to appreciate the documents marked as Exs.P7 and P15, which well establish that the appellant suffered serious injury only because of the accident. It was contended that the tribunal ought to have expected strict evidence as required under a civil suit in a motor accident claims case and that the Tribunal failed to see that the claim of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injury suffered by the appellant is very nominal and ought to have allowed the same. 9. The learned counsel for the insurance company submits that the petitioner's name had not been included in the F.I.R. As per the contentions of the claimant, he had been rushed to the Government Hospital, Tindivanam, immediately, after the accident, wherein he had taken first aid but to prove the same the claimant had not produced any documentary evidence. As such, the claimant had not produced vital documents for claiming compensation. 10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimants submits that one of the passengers in the said car namely Lakshmi had died in the said accident and that she had travelled along with him. Due to mental shock and due to the tense situation and due to the grievous injuries sustained by him, he had not been able to reveal the facts to the Investigation Officer. It is the duty of the Investigation Officer to collect the medical records of the claimants, at the Government Hospital, Tindivanam. The claimant had marked fifteen documents, including F.I.R, rough sketch, Doctor's statement and connected medical records. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the impugned order of the tribunal, this Court is of the view that (1) As per Ex.P8, medical discharge summary and Ex.P7-Doctor's statement, the claimant had sustained injuries in the motor accident; (2) As per F.I.R, this is a major accident, since, one Co-passenger had died on the spot. The claimant also had sustained grievous injuries. The claimant also had sustained grievous injuries. Therefore, he had undergone treatment at Vijaya Health Centre, from 21.08.2000 to 05.10.2000, as inpatient; (3) considering the tense situation prevailing at the time of accident and that the total normalcy has been disrupted, it is not reasonable to expect the petitioner to find out whether his name had been included in the F.I.R. Under the circumstances, this Court is inclined to grant a minimum compensation to the claimant. Considering that he had taken treatment as an inpatient from 21.08.2000 to 05.10.2000, Rs.25,000/-is awarded to him as compensation under the head of medical expenses; Rs.10,000/-is awarded under the head of transport; Rs.10,000/- is awarded under the head of nutrition; Rs.10,000/-under the head of attender charges and Rs.25,000/- under the head of disability; Rs.5,000/-is awarded under the head of loss of income during medical treatment period. In total, this Court grants a compensation of a sum of Rs.85,000/-to the claimant. This amount will carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation. This Court directs the 2nd respondent/United India Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount, as per this Court order, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the tribunal. 12. After such deposit has been made, it is open to the claimants to withdraw the entire amount, with accrued interest thereon, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.33 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kulithalai, after filing a memo, along with a copy of this order. 13. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. Consequently, the Award and Decree, passed in M.C.O.P.No.33 of 2001, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kulithalai, is modified, dated 29.08.2003.No costs.