AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.—This appeal is preferred by the Appellant-Insurance Company against the judgment and Decree dated
18.01.2010 made in M.C.O.P. No. 79 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Substantiate Court, Kovilpatti.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
The injured-claimant Sankari met with motor traffic accident on 31.08.2008 at about 9.00p.m. When the said injured was going by her two
wheeler Kinetic Honda bearing Registration No. TN-69-W-6955 from South to North direction near by the junction of Bhagawath Singh Street,
in Mathankoil Road, Kovilpatti in the left side of the road, a Tata Load van bearing Registration No. TN-69-R-0425 belonging to the second
Respondent herein came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed and hit against the Kinetic Honda vehicle.
Due to the said impact, the injured-claimant was thrown out of her vehicle ad sustained multiple injuries all over the body. She claimed a sum of
Rs. 4,00,000/-as compensation before the Tribunal. The said van was insured with the Appellant Insurance Company who resisted the claim. On
pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
Whether the statement of the Appellant that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the claimant is correct?
Whether it is correct that the van owned by the second Respondent was not insured with the Appellant Insurance Company?
Whether it is correct that the driver of the second Respondent had no valid driving licence at the time of the accident and the Appellant-
Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation?
Whether the claimant is entitled to any compensation, if so how much? and from whom?
After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the van and awarded a compensation of Rs. 84,500/-with interest 7.5%p.a. from the date of claim petition. The details of the
compensation are as under:
For pain and suffering and
mental shock Rs. 50,000/-
For damage to the vehicle Rs. 4,800/-
For medical expenses Rs. 29,700/-
-----------
Total Rs. 84,500/-
-----------
Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant/Insurance Company questioned the liability of compensation and vehemently contended that they
are not liable to pay compensation on the ground that the driver of the Tata Load Van did not possess valid driving licence to drive the vehicle at
the time of accident. He further submitted that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, exorbitant and also without any basis and
justification. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside.
Heard the counsel for the Appellant and perused the materials available on record. On the side of the claimant, the injured claimant herself was
examined as P.W.1. and documents Exs.P.1 to P.13 were marked. On behalf of the Appellant-Insurance Company R.W.1-Isakkiraja, Manager
of the Insurance Company was examined and Ex.R.1-the copy of the Insurance Policy was marked. One Rajendran was examined as Court
Witness and the badge the driver was marked as Court Exhibit. After considering the above oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal had
given a categorical finding that the driver of the van was having valid driving licence to drive LMV vehicle and the vehicle involved in the accident is
not a heavy vehicle and it is only the Light Motor Vehicle. The Tribunal also relied on Ex.P.6, the Motor Vehicle Inspector''s Report to that effect
and held that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the van. It is a question of fact and it is based on
valid materials and evidence. Therefore, the same is confirmed.
The injured-claimant was 38 years old at the time of accident. She was a house wife. In the evidence of P.W.1, it is stated that only the driver of
the van caused the accident and the driver was charge-sheeted by Kovilpatti West Police Station in Cr. No. 521 of 2008. Due to the accident, she
sustained the following injuries:
A lacerated injury on to forehead1.5cmsx2cmsxSkin deep.
A lacerated wound below right lower eye head 1cmx1cmxskin deep.
A contusion 2cmx2cm on right clavicle region.
A abrasion 2cmx2cm on right middle forearm.
Right forearm -- NAD
Right shoulder -- NAD
C.T. Brain (not legible) --NAD Radiological Investigations simple.
Immediately after the accident, she was admitted in the Aarthi Hospital, Kovilpatti and she took treatment from 31.08.2008 to 08.09.2008.
Ex.P.2 is the copy of Accident Register. After considering the above oral and documentary evidence and taking into consideration the nature of
injuries, the Tribunal has awarded a consolidated sum of Rs. 50,000/-towards pain and suffering and for mental shock. The amount awarded
under this head is also very reasonable and hence, the same is confirmed. Further, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 4,800/-towards damage
to the vehicle. Ex.P.13 is the series of bills towards expenses incurred for vehicle repair works. It is an actual expenditure. The amount awarded
under this head is also very reasonable and hence, the same is confirmed. Further, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 29,700/-towards
medical expenses. Ex.P.12 is the series of medical bills. There is no dispute that the injured-claimant was in the hospital for more than one month.
It is an actual expenditure. The award amount under this head is also very reasonable and hence the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded
interest at 7.5% p.a. After taking into consideration of the date of accident, date of award and prevailing rate of interest during that period, the
interest rate awarded by the Tribunal at 7.5%p.a. from the date of petition, is reasonable and hence the same is confirmed.
The findings given by the Tribunal are based on valid materials and evidence and I do not find any error or illegality in the order of the Tribunal
so as to warrant interference. It is a question of fact. It is not a perverse order. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is in accordance with
law and hence the same is confirmed.
The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is devoid of merits and it is a not a fit case for admission and accordingly it is dismissed. Consequently, the
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.