Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 517 (MAD)

Manager, Madurai v. S. Akilan

2013-01-23

C.S.KARNAN

body2013
Judgment 1. The short facts of the case are as follows:- The first respondent herein / claimant has filed the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.2027 of 2004, on the file of IV Additional Subordinate Court, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madurai, against the appellant herein and another and claimed compensation of a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest stating that on 06.03.2004, at about 3.30 hours, when the petitioner was travelling as a pillion rider on the motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-36-C-1771, on the Madurai to Annanagar Main Road, the rider of the motorcycle rode the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and as a result, the petitioner was thrown away from the motorcycle due to the sudden jolting of the vehicle and thereby, the petitioner sustained multiple grievous injuries and hence he has filed the above claim. 2. The second respondent / Insurance Company had filed a counter statement and refuted the claim. The second respondent denied the occurrence of the accident. It was submitted that the owner of the vehicle is none other than the elder brother of the claimant. As such, both have colluded with each other and claimed compensation against the Insurance Company, which is a false claim. The second respondent further submitted that the claim is excessive and had also denied the averments in the claim regarding the age and occupation of the petitioner. 3. On considering the averments of both parties, the Tribunal had framed four issues, viz., "(i) Whether the first respondent driver's rash and negligent act is the cause for the accident as alleged? (ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the claim as prayed for? If so, what is the quantum? (iii) By whom compensation is to be paid? (iv) Such other relief if any?" 4. On the side of the claimant, three witnesses had been examined and eleven documents were marked, viz., F.I.R., discharge summary, scan bills and scan reports, prescription, medical bills, case sheet, disability certificate and X-ray. On the side of the respondents, two witnesses were examined as R.W.1 and R.W.2 and two documents were marked, viz., case sheet and accident register. 5. P.W.1 had adduced evidence that on 06.03.2004, at about 3.30 p.m., when he was travelling along with one Anbarasan as pillion rider on the motorcycle, the rider of the motorcycle rode the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the said accident. 5. P.W.1 had adduced evidence that on 06.03.2004, at about 3.30 p.m., when he was travelling along with one Anbarasan as pillion rider on the motorcycle, the rider of the motorcycle rode the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the said accident. P.W.1 further stated that he was admitted at Vikram Hospital as an inpatient. 6. P.W.2, doctor had adduced evidence that the claimant had sustained bone fracture injuries and he had assessed the disability at 31%. 7. On considering the evidence of the parties, the Tribunal had granted a sum of Rs.84,901/- as compensation to the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of deposit. 8. Aggrieved by the said award and decree, the Insurance Company has filed the above appeal. 9. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company vehemently argued that the claimant has colluded with his elder brother, who is the owner of the vehicle and filed the said claim. If the accident had really happened, then the owner of the vehicle is liable to pay compensation. Further, the claimant has addicted to alcohol and as such, the accident had occurred due to his own negligence. The Tribunal had awarded compensation of a sum of Rs.18,301/- under the head of 'medical expenses' which is not proper since the medical records are not genuine. 10. The learned counsel for the claimant has submitted that there is no discussion or finding before the Tribunal regarding the claimant's addiction towards alcohol. Further, there was no medical evidence to show that the claimant had consumed alcohol at the time of accident. The Tribunal had not granted an adequate compensation under the heads of attender charges, pain and suffering and nutrition. 11. 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 liability and quantum of compensation. This Court is of the further view that only the investigation officer and the doctor are competent persons to prove that the claim is a fraudulent one and that the claimant was in a drunken mood at the time of accident. This Court is of the further view that only the investigation officer and the doctor are competent persons to prove that the claim is a fraudulent one and that the claimant was in a drunken mood at the time of accident. In the absence of documentary evidence and necessary witnesses mentioned above, this Court does not accept the contentions laid down by the appellant. Hence, the award passed by the Tribunal is confirmed. This Court directs the appellant herein to deposit the said compensation amount as per Tribunal order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after deducting earlier deposits made, if any, by the appellant herein. 12. After such a deposit has been made, it is open to the claimant to withdraw the entire compensation amount with accrued interests and costs, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.2027 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, IV Additional Subordinate Court, Madurai, after filing a Memo along with a copy of this record. 13. In the result, the above appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.2027 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, IV Additional Subordinate Court, Madurai, dated 05.01.2011 is confirmed. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.