Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1239 (MAD)

Chinnadurai v. Kumararaja

2020-08-13

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

body2020
JUDGMENT : S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J. Prayer: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 14.07.2017 passed in M.C.O.P. No. 129 of 2014 on the file of the learned Sub Judge, Sub Court-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tiruchengode. 1. The appellant-claimant has preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 14.07.2017 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Sub Court-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tiruchengode in M.C.O.P. No. 129 of 2014. 2. The accident occurred on 29.11.2013 at about 08.45 P.M. at Tiruchengode Town, SND Road, in front of Shalini Alteration Tailor Shop. The Tiruchengode Town Police Station registered a case in Crime No. 1102 of 2013 under Sections 279 and 337 IPC. 3. The claimant sustained grievous injuries which caused certain partial disability. Thus, the claimant has chosen to file the claim petition before the Tribunal, seeking compensation. 4. The Tribunal considered the facts and circumstances as well as the documents and the evidences produced by the parties in the claim petition. 5. As far as the negligence aspect is concerned, the Tribunal formed an opinion that Ex.P-2 (MVI Report) reveals that the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No. TN-27-V-7899 is having a valid license and the appellant/claimant, during his cross-examination, categorically admitted that at the time of accident, the Cement Mixture Machine was attached with the lorry bearing Registration No. TN-27-V-7899. The driver of the lorry was attempted to overtake the motorcycle and during the course, the Cement Mixture Machine was dashed against the claimant and the claimant sustained grievous injuries. The Cement Mixture Machine was not insured with the second respondent-Insurance Company. Thus, the Tribunal arrived a conclusion that due to the negligence act of the owner of the vehicle bearing Registration No. TN-27-V-7899, the said Cement Mixing Machine was attached backside of the lorry and due to the rash and negligent act of the lorry driver alone, the accident happened and therefore, the owner of the lorry is liable to pay compensation. 6. Considering the fact that the driver of the lorry has driven the lorry in a rash and negligent manner and there was no insurance as far as the attached Cement Mixing Machine with the lorry is concerned, the Tribunal ordered pay and recovery. 6. Considering the fact that the driver of the lorry has driven the lorry in a rash and negligent manner and there was no insurance as far as the attached Cement Mixing Machine with the lorry is concerned, the Tribunal ordered pay and recovery. The Tribunal, in this regard, arrived a conclusion that the owner of the lorry is liable to pay compensation to the claimant and the second respondent-Insurance Company has to recover the said amount from the first respondent-owner of the lorry as the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No. TN-27-V-7899. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant is mainly contended on the ground of enhancement of compensation. The learned counsel for the appellant reiterated that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate. The Tribunal has not granted adequate compensation under various heads and therefore, the compensation of Rs. 73,977/- awarded by the Tribunal is to be enhanced. 8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent-Insurance Company disputed the said contentions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant by stating that the appellant/ claimant sustained minor injuries and there was no subsequent treatment and this apart, the appellant has not produced any evidence to show that he had undergone treatment in the hospital continuously and sustained permanent disability. In the absence of any such documents or records to show the grievousness of the injuries, the award of the Tribunal is just and therefore, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is liable to be dismissed. 9. Perusal of the claim petition reveals that the details regarding the nature of injuries has not even mentioned in the claim petition. Contrarily in Column No. 11 of the claim petition, the claimant has mentioned that he sustained grievous injuries. However, the details regarding the injuries are not mentioned even in the claim petition. 10. Perusal of the award also reveals that the claimant sustained grievous injuries. However, the details regarding the injuries, the treatment taken whether the claimant has taken treatment as inpatient or outpatient and no such details are provided either in the claim petition nor any evidence has been adduced before the Tribunal. 10. Perusal of the award also reveals that the claimant sustained grievous injuries. However, the details regarding the injuries, the treatment taken whether the claimant has taken treatment as inpatient or outpatient and no such details are provided either in the claim petition nor any evidence has been adduced before the Tribunal. In the absence of any such evidence regarding the medical treatment taken either continuously or for a particular period, the Tribunal is right in assessing the quantum of compensation. 11. The Tribunal can award compensation which must be not only just and the said compensation must be in consonance with the documents, nature of injuries and the disability sustained by the claimant. Therefore, the medical documents are vital for the purpose of assessing the quantum of compensation. In the absence of any such medical documents, mere statement that the claimant sustained grievous injury is insufficient and even, therefore, the Tribunal has not committed any error or perversity in awarding the compensation. The Tribunal has granted compensation for loss of earning Rs. 18,000/- and for partial permanent disability Rs. 37,500/-. 12. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is absolutely no materials to show that the appellant has sustained grievous injuries and continuously taken treatment for such injuries. Thus, there is no sufficient materials to enhance the compensation granted by the Tribunal. 13. Accordingly, the judgment and decree dated 14.07.2017 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Sub Court-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tiruchengode in M.C.O.P. No. 129 of 2014 stands confirmed and consequently, the C.M.A. No. 4803 of 2019 stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.