Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2854 (MAD)

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. , Salem v. K. Palani

2013-08-05

C.S.KARNAN

body2013
JUDGMENT : 1. The 1st respondent herein/claimant has filed the claim petition against the owner and insurer of Tractor bearing Registration No.TN24-A-9852, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Principal Subordinate Judge), Salem, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. It was submitted that on 12.05.1996, when the claimant was travelling as a cleaner on the Tractor on the Morappur Road, the driver of the Tractor had driven it at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. As a result, the Tractor capsized and the claimant had sustained injuries. 2. The New India Assurance Company Limited has filed a counter statement and resisted the claim petition. The averments in the claim regarding manner of accident, age, income and nature of injuries sustained by the claimant. Further, it was submitted that the claim was excessive. 3. On verifying the averments of both parties, the Tribunal had framed three issues for consideration in the case namely: (1) Whether the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent manner by the driver of the 1st respondent's Tractor? (2) Whether the claimant is entitled to get compensation? If so, who is liable to pay the compensation? and (3) What is the quantum of compensation, which the claimant is entitled to get? 4. On the side of the claimant, he was examined as PW1 and 4 documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P4 namely, Ex.P1-F.I.R; Ex.P2-Wound Certificate; Ex.P3-Scan report; and Ex.P4-Medical bills. On the side of the respondents', one witness was examined and one document was marked namely R.C.Book of Tractor. PW1 had adduced evidence that on 12.05.2006, when he was sitting nearby the driver of the Tractor bearing Registration No.TN-24-A-9852, at about 6.45 p.m. and while the Tractor was proceeding on the Morappur Main Road, a two wheeler had suddenly come from the opposite direction. At once, the driver of the Tractor had applied sudden brake and as a result, the Tractor capsized and the driver had succumbed to his injuries sustained on his abdomen, lower jaw, upper jaw, chest and neck. He was immediately admitted at Government Hospital, Dharmapuri, wherein preliminary treatment had been given. Thereafter, he was referred to R.K. Hospital, Salem, wherein he had been treated as inpatient from 13.05.2006 to 25.05.2006 and he had spent a sum of Rs.57,262/- towards medical expenses. He was immediately admitted at Government Hospital, Dharmapuri, wherein preliminary treatment had been given. Thereafter, he was referred to R.K. Hospital, Salem, wherein he had been treated as inpatient from 13.05.2006 to 25.05.2006 and he had spent a sum of Rs.57,262/- towards medical expenses. In support of his evidence, he had marked the above mentioned documents. 5. RW1 had adduced evidence that he is the Administrative Officer attached to the Insurance Company and that the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company. As per the terms and conditions of the policy, the cleaner is not entitled to receive compensation. However, RW1 had admitted in his cross examination that the 3rd party is entitled to get compensation. 6. On considering the evidence of the witnesses and on perusing the documents marked by both the parties, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.90,765/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. Against the said award, the Insurance Company has filed the above appeal. The highly competent counsel argued that the 3rd party is entitled to receive compensation, if the vehicle driver had driven it in a rash and negligent manner. In the instant case, the injured had travelled as a cleaner on the Tractor and no seats had been provided for the cleaner. Further, in order to prove the nature of injuries and disability, the Doctor was not examined. Therefore, the assessment of compensation is vague. Hence, the learned counsel has challenged the negligence as well as liability and quantum of compensation. 7. The highly competent counsel for the claimant argued that the claimant was a cleaner and attached to the Tractor and as such he had travelled along with the driver of the Tractor to assist him for operating the vehicle on the public road. The vehicle had been insured with the Insurance Company. It is an admitted fact that a two wheeler ridden by a rider had come suddenly from the opposite direction and that in order to avoid collusion against the two wheeler, the driver of the Tractor had applied sudden brake. As a result, the Tractor had capsized. In the accident, the driver had succumbed to his injuries and the cleaner i.e. the claimant had sustained grievous injuries. The claimant had been hospitalised for a period of 10 days as an inpatient and he had spent a sum of Rs.57,262/- towards medical expenses. As a result, the Tractor had capsized. In the accident, the driver had succumbed to his injuries and the cleaner i.e. the claimant had sustained grievous injuries. The claimant had been hospitalised for a period of 10 days as an inpatient and he had spent a sum of Rs.57,262/- towards medical expenses. The Tribunal had not awarded compensation under the various relevant heads namely pain and suffering, nutrition, attender charges, transport and loss of earning during medical treatment period. 8. On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and on perusing the impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the conclusions arrived at regarding negligence, liability and quantum of compensation. This Court is of the further view that the vehicle had been insured with the Insurance Company and the claimant had travelled as a cleaner on the Tractor to assist the driver. Further, the claimant had spent a sum of Rs.57,262/- towards medical expenses and that he had been hospitalised for a period of 10 days as is seen from the records. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the appeal. 9. This Court already directed the Insurance Company to deposit the entire compensation amount with interest. Now, it is open to the claimant to withdraw the entire compensation amount, with accrued interest thereon, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.697 of 2006, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Principal Subordinate Judge), Salem, after filing a memo, along with a copy of this order. 10. In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the Award and Decree, passed in M.C.O.P.No.697 of 2006, dated 02.01.2008, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims, (Principal Subordinate Judge), Salem, is confirmed. No costs.