Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 3324 (MAD)

R. Bharanidharan v. K. Duraisamy

2013-09-16

C.S.KARNAN

body2013
Judgment 1. The claimant stated that on 09.10.2003, at about 2.00 p.m., when he was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-09-V-6726, on the Thuraipakkam Main road, the 1st respondent's lorry bearing Registration No.TN-27-T-6273, coming in the opposite direction and driven by its driver in a negligent manner, had dashed against the motorcycle. As a result, he had sustained injuries. Hence, he has filed the claim against the owner and insurance company of the lorry. 2. The New India Assurance Company Limited had filed a counter statement and resisted the claim petition. The driver of the lorry did not possess a valid driving licence and the said lorry had not been covered under relevant documents. Actually, the rider of the motorcycle, coming in the opposite direction had ridden it negligently and dashed against the lorry. The averments in the claim regarding age, income and occupation of claimant was not admitted. 3. On verifying the averments of both the parties, the Tribunal had framed 4 issues namely (1) Whether the accident had been committed by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-27-T-6273? (2) Whether the 2nd respondent's lorry had been insured with the 3rd respondent? (3) Whether the claimant is entitled to get compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation? and (4) To what relief is the claimant entitled to get? 4. On the side of the claimant, 3 witnesses were examined and 11 documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P11 namely: Ex.P1-Discharge medical summary; Ex.P2, Ex.P3 & Ex.P5-Case sheet summary; Ex.P4-C.T.Scan report; Ex.P6-Medical bills; Ex.P7-Copy of F.I.R.; Ex.P8 & Ex.P10-X-ray; Ex.P9 & Ex.P11-Disability Certificate. On the side of the respondent, no witness was examined and no documentary evidence was let in. PW1 had adduced evidence that on 09.10.2003, at about 2.00 p.m., when he was travelling as a pillion rider, on a motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-09-V-6726, on the East Coast Road, the 1st respondent's lorry bearing Registration No.TN-27-T-6273, coming in the opposite direction and driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motorcycle. PW1 further stated that he is aged about 22 years and he is doing computer servicing in a private firm. Further, he deposed that he had undergone treatment at Malar Hospital, Adyar and had spent a huge amount for medical expenses. PW1 further stated that he is aged about 22 years and he is doing computer servicing in a private firm. Further, he deposed that he had undergone treatment at Malar Hospital, Adyar and had spent a huge amount for medical expenses. PW2, Doctor had adduced evidence that the claimant had sustained head injury and lost his vision on his left eye. He had taken treatment at Aravind Eye Hospital, Madurai and he had assessed the disability at 40%. PW3, had adduced evidence that the claimant had sustained 60% disability and he had undergone treatment at Malar Hospital for a period of 33 days, as an inpatient. 5. On recording the evidence of the witnesses and on perusing the documents marked by the claimant, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.5,40,075/- as compensation together with interest at the rate of 9.5% per annum. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimant has filed the above appeal for additional compensation. The highly competent counsel for the appellant argued that the claimant's left eye vision had been totally impaired due to head injuries sustained on his skull and his nervous system has been affected. The Neurologist and Orthopedist had assessed a total disability at 100%. The claimant had spent a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-towards medical expenses. The Tribunal had not granted adequate compensation under the relevant heads. 6. The very competent counsel for the Insurance Company argued that the Tribunal had awarded adequate compensation. Further, the rider of the motorcycle had contributed negligence in the occurrence of accident and as such contributory negligence has to be attributed in the instant case. The Doctors had assessed the disability at 100%, which is excessive and improper. 7. On considering 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 shortcomings in the conclusions arrived at regarding negligence and liability. This Court is of the further view that the F.I.R. has been registered against the driver of the vehicle and the said vehicle had been insured with the Insurance Company. As such, the Tribunal had decided the two issues in an appropriate manner. This Court is of the further view that the F.I.R. has been registered against the driver of the vehicle and the said vehicle had been insured with the Insurance Company. As such, the Tribunal had decided the two issues in an appropriate manner. However, the quantum of compensation is on the lower side as the claimant had lost his left eye vision, as per evidence of Doctors and he had also sustained head injuries. Both the Neurologist and Orthopedist had assessed the disability at 100%. It is also seen that the claimant is aged 22 years and has spent about Rs.6,00,000/- for medical expenses. Therefore, this Court grants additional compensation to the claimant as follows:-Rs.1,00,000/-towards disability; Rs.3,99,075/- is awarded for medical expenses; Rs.20,000/-towards pain and suffering; Rs.15,000/- towards transport; Rs.15,000/- towards nutrition; Rs.15,000/- towards loss of earning during medical treatment period; Rs.20,000/-for attender charges and Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities and loss of comfort due to loss of eye vision which is permanent in nature. In total, this Court awards Rs.6,84,075/- as compensation to the claimant, as it is found to be appropriate in the instant case. After subtracting initial compensation of a sum of Rs.5,40,075/-, this Court grants Rs.1,44,000/-as additional compensation. This amount will carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till date of payment of compensation. 8. This Court directs the New India Assurance Company Limited to comply with this Court's order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order, by way of depositing the award before the trial Court. After such a deposit having been made, it is open to the claimant to withdraw the additional compensation amount, with interest thereon, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.2207 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/II Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai, after filing a memo along with a copy of this order. 9. In the result, the above appeal is partly allowed. Consequently, the award and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.2207 of 2005, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/II Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai, dated 24.11.2008, is modified. No costs.