Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 235 (MAD)

R. Kumaran v. Intek Security Systems (P) Ltd.

2013-01-09

S.MANIKUMAR

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the accident victim has sought for an enhancement. The accident has occurred on 09.01.2004. Though, he was a student, claiming himself to be a part-time accountant for shops and earned Rs.2,000/-, for the injuries, period of treatment and under other heads, he had claimed Rs.1,50,000/-. 2. On this day, when the matter came up for admission, Mr.A.Shanmugaraj, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that before the claims tribunal since both the respondents did not appear, the claims tribunal after passing an order, setting them exparte, proceeded to examine the appellant on 07.10.2011 as PW1 and posted the matter for passing orders. As the appellant suffered disability, he wanted to examine Dr.J.R.R.Thiyagarajan, who has issued the disability certificate and hence, filed a miscellaneous petition on 10.10.2011 for reopening the claim petition for the purpose of examining the doctor on his side. He further submitted that without passing any orders, on the said application, the claims tribunal, computed the compensation on the basis of Exs.P3 and P4, O.P. Chits, Ex.P5, Puthur Chits and Ex.P6, prescriptions and quantified the compensation at Rs.37,000/-. 3. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the claims tribunal ought not to have returned the petition filed for reopening and should have given an opportunity to the appellant to adduce evidence to the effect that he had suffered disability. Except the above, the learned counsel for the appellant has no serious grievance over the quantum of compensation awarded by the claims tribunal. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the materials available on record. 5. As stated supra, when the insured / insurer of the offending vehicle remained absent, the claims tribunal has passed an order setting them exparte on 29.07.2011 and proceeded to examine the appellant as PW1, on 17.08.2011 and posted the case for orders on 12.10.2011. Ex.P3, O.P.Chit issued by G.S.Hospital, Chennai and Ex.P4, O.P. Chit issued by Government Royapettah Hospital Chennai, Ex.P5, Puthur Chits and Ex.P6, prescriptions have been marked by the appellant/claimant to prove that he suffered injuries. 6. Though, the appellant at column No.13(a) of the claim petition has submitted that he suffered permanent disability, the details of disablement allegedly suffered, have not been specifically mentioned in the claim petition. 6. Though, the appellant at column No.13(a) of the claim petition has submitted that he suffered permanent disability, the details of disablement allegedly suffered, have not been specifically mentioned in the claim petition. Even assuming that the appellant has a right to seek for disability compensation and for that purpose, adduce evidence by examining the Doctor, who issued the disability certificate, yet there should be sufficient pleadings in the claim petition. Except the reference as to permanent disablement, in Column No.13(a) of the claim petition, there is nothing to indicate that the appellant was examined by a Doctor, prior to the institution of the claim petition. 7. The accident has occurred on 09.04.2004. The appellant has examined himself on 17.08.2011. Material on record enclosed in the typed set of papers at page 9, shows that an affidavit has been filed by Dr.J.R.R.Thiyagarajan, to the effect that he had clinically examined the appellant on 14.08.2011 for the purpose of assessment of disability. Absolutely no documents have been filed by the appellant to prove that there was continuous treatment from 2004 to 2011 and that he suffered any disability. No doubt, permanent disability would not set in immediately after the accident, yet, in the absence of any medical record to prove that there was continuous treatment for the infirmity in the joint and the muscles, said to have been suffered by the appellant and in the absence of any pleadings in the claim petition that the doctor has assessed the disability, before the institution of the claim, the attempt to bring in evidence, after filing of the claim petition, would itself go to show that the claim on disability is not bonafide. A claim petition for compensation under various heads should be made on sufficient pleadings and evidence. The mere fact that the appellant has attempted to get evidence, after nearly a lapse of seven years from the date of accident, and that too, after the institution of the claim in 2005, shows that there is no bonafide in the claim, as regards disability. For making a claim on disability, the doctor should have examined the injured, before the institution of the claim. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the contention that the claims tribunal has failed to afford a reasonable opportunity to adduce evidence to prove disability, cannot be countenanced. For making a claim on disability, the doctor should have examined the injured, before the institution of the claim. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the contention that the claims tribunal has failed to afford a reasonable opportunity to adduce evidence to prove disability, cannot be countenanced. When the appellant has not specifically pleaded, the nature of disablement suffered by him, it is not open to him to seek for reopening of the case, just two days prior to the date of judgment. Upon perusal of Ex.P3, O.P.chit issued by G.S.Hospital, Chennai, the claims tribunal has found that he has taken treatment as outpatient on 09.01.2004 and as per Ex.P4, issued by Government Royapettah Hospital, Chennai, he was again treated as outpatient on 10.01.2004. The injuries noticed by the claims tribunal are (1) laceration over right knee right hand and abrasion over right shoulder and ligament tear. Considering Ex.P5 O.P. Chit, issued by Puthur Hospital and Ex.P6, prescriptions and that the claims tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.37,000/- as compensation under various heads. There is no manifest illegality committed by the claims tribunal in returning the application for reopening of the case. Considering the nature of injuries, an award of Rs.37,000/-, is just and reasonable and it does not require any enhancement. For the reasons stated supra, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. 9. The National Insurance Company, Chennai, the 2nd respondent, is directed to deposit the entire award amount with proportionate accrued interest and costs to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.2268 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (V Judge, Small Causes Court), Chennai, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the appellant /claimant is permitted to withdraw the award amount with proportionate accrued interest and costs, by making necessary applications.