Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 3269 (MAD)

P. Alangaravalli v. R. Rajaraman

2013-09-11

C.S.KARNAN

body2013
Judgment 1. The claimant has filed compensation petition in M.C.O.P.No.3269 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Fast Track Court No. IV, Chennai, against the respondents herein stating that on 07.04.1998, at about 00.30 hours, when she was travelling, as a coolie, in a lorry, on the G.S.T. Road, the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-28-6343, coming from the opposite direction and driven by its driver in a negligent manner had dashed against the lorry wherein she had travelled. As a result, she had sustained injuries. 2. The Insurance Company has filed counter statement and opposed the claim petition. The respondent submitted that the accident was not caused due to any negligent driving of the 1st respondent. Further, the claim is not a bonafide one. 3. On verifying the averments of both parties, the Tribunal had framed two issues namely:- (1) Due to whose negligence was the accident caused? And (2) Whether the claimant is entitled to get compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation? 4. On the side of the claimant, two witnesses were examined and 5 documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P5 namely: Ex.P1-Discharge medical summary; Ex.P2-O.P.Chits; Ex.P3-F.I.R.; Ex.P4-Disability Certificate; and Ex.P5-X-ray. PW1 had adduced evidence that on 07.04.1998, when she was travelling in a lorry from Chennai to Thoothukudi and while the lorry was proceeding on the G.S.T. Road, Tindivanam, the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-28-A-6343, driven by its driver in a negligent manner had dashed against the lorry in which she was travelling. As a result, she had sustained bone fracture injuries of her right hand and shoulder. Immediately, she had been admitted at Tindivanam Hospital, wherein she had been given preliminary treatment. Subsequently, she took treatment at Puthur, wherein treatment was given by the Doctors attached to bone setting hospital. Thereafter, she had undergone treatment at Stanley Hospital from 12.11.1998 to 01.12.1998 as inpatient, wherein surgical operation was conducted on her hand and steel plate was fixed. PW2, Doctor had assessed the disability at 45%. 5. On recording the evidence of the witnesses and on hearing the arguments of the learned counsel and on scrutinising the exhibits marked by the claimant, the trial Court dismissed the claim petition. Aggrieved by the dismissal, the aggrieved claimant has filed the above appeal. PW2, Doctor had assessed the disability at 45%. 5. On recording the evidence of the witnesses and on hearing the arguments of the learned counsel and on scrutinising the exhibits marked by the claimant, the trial Court dismissed the claim petition. Aggrieved by the dismissal, the aggrieved claimant has filed the above appeal. The highly competent counsel argued that the claimant is a coolie and illiterate lady, who had sustained multiplier bone fracture injuries in the said accident. Therefore, initially, she had taken preliminary treatment at the Government Hospital, Tindivanam and thereafter without collecting the medical records from the Tindivanam Government Hospital, she had been given medical treatment for about 4 months. Even then, she could not recover from the said injuries. Therefore, she had been admitted at Stanley Hospital, wherein a surgical operation was conducted and rib bone was removed and implanted in her right hand. Besides this, steel plates with screws had been fixed. The aggrieved claimant is unable to produce the relevant medical documents before the trial Court due to her illiteracy. It is an admitted fact that the claimant met with an accident. As such, the F.I.R. has been registered which is existing and is also an authenticated document. Besides this, O.P. chit and discharge medical summary had been marked. Therefore, the claim petition is a bonafide one. The competent Doctor had assessed the disability at 45% and he spoke on the same line of PW1 regarding nature of injuries and mode of treatment. 6. The highly competent counsel for the Insurance Company vehemently argued that the claimant had not proved her case against the Insurance Company in order to claim compensation. The claimant had not furnished Rough sketch, Insurance policy, Criminal Court findings, authenticated medical records and eyewitnesses to prove her claim. Therefore, the claimant has not proved the accident, mode of treatment, period of treatment and nature of injuries. 7. On verifying the factual position of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and on perusing the dismissal order of the Tribunal, this Court is of the view that the F.I.R. has been registered by the Traffic Investigation Officer, which is existing and it reveals that the said accident had taken place. 7. On verifying the factual position of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and on perusing the dismissal order of the Tribunal, this Court is of the view that the F.I.R. has been registered by the Traffic Investigation Officer, which is existing and it reveals that the said accident had taken place. Further, the claimant, as per her evidence, had taken first aid at Tindivanam and thereafter, had gone to Puthur for treatment and subsequently underwent treatment at Stanley Hospital. These contentions of the claimant are believable even though the continued period of medical treatment have not been proved through sufficient medical records. Further, this Court accepts the contentions of the learned counsel for the claimant that the claimant is a coolie and also an illiterate person and therefore non production of relevant medical documents alone cannot be a basis for total rejection of the claim. Therefore, this Court assesses the compensation as follows:- Rs.22,500/- is awarded for disability; Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs.5,000/-towards transport; Rs.5,000/- towards nutrition; Rs.5,000/-towards attender charges and Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenses. In total, this Court awards Rs.52,500/-as compensation to the claimant. This amount will carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim till date of payment of compensation. 8. This Court directs the 2nd respondent herein/United India Insurance Company to execute this Court's order within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of this order, by way of depositing the said amount before the trial Court. 9. After such deposit having been made, it is open to the claimant to withdraw the said compensation amount, with interest thereon, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.3269 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Fast Track Court No. IV, Chennai, after filing a memo along with a copy of this order. 10. In the result, the above appeal is partly allowed. Consequently, the award and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.3269 of 1999, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Fast Track Court No. IV, Chennai, dated 11.12.2002, is modified. No costs.