AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C.S. Karnan, J.—The above appeal has been filed by the Appellant / claimant, against the award and decree dated 19.08.1999 made in M.C.O.P. No. 130 of 1997 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge), Hosur.
The short facts of the case are as follows:
On 22.05.1997, the Petitioner was travelling in a tempo, loaded with tomato goods, bearing Registration No. TN-29-8233 from Royakottai to Palakkodu and at that point of time, a lorry bearing Registration No. KRN-5145 came in the opposite direction and dashed against the tempo. In the result, the Petitioner had sustained grievous injuries on his right leg and right hand finger. Hence, the above claim petition has been filed against the Respondents and a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-has been claimed.
The second Respondent had filed a counter statement and resisted the claim petition. The Respondent accepted that the tempo was insured with the Insurance Company but at the time of accident, the driver did not possess a valid driving licence. The Respondent further stated that the accident had been committed by the driver of the lorry as he had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. The Respondent denied the age, income and occupation of the claimant.
The fourth Respondent had filed a counter statement and opposed the claim petition. The Respondent denied that the accident was committed by the driver of the lorry. Further, 15 persons had been travelled in the tempo, and as such driver of the tempo had breached the policy conditions. The Respondent denied the age, income and occupation of the claimant.
On pleading of both parties, the Tribunal had framed two issues for consideration, viz.,:
Did the driver of the tempo commit the said accident in a rash and negligent manner or did the driver of the lorry commit the said accident in a rash and negligent manner ?
Whether claimant is entitled to receive compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation?
On the side of the claimant, two witnesses were examined viz., P.W.1-claimant, P.W.2 Doctor Gandhi. The claimant marked nine documents, viz., First Information Report, copy of the Insurance Policy for the lorry, Wound Certificate, Medical bills, X-ray and disability certificate etc. On the side of the Respondent, no witness was examined and First Information Report alone was marked.
P.W.1, had adduced evidence stating that he had been travelling in the tempo loaded with vegetable goods and at that time, the lorry had come at a high speed and tried to overtake the tempo and dashed against the tempo. In the result, he had sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he had been taken to the Government Hospital, wherein he had undergone treatment for 7 days. He further stated that he had sustained fracture injuries in his right hand finger besides sustaining injuries on his head and right leg. P.W.2, the doctor had adduced evidence stating that after he had examined the claimant and verified the medical records, he had assessed the disability as 50%. The claimant''s right leg had been shortened by 1 inch. The fractured bones in his right hand finger has not united yet.
On considering the evidence of the witnesses, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 70,000/-as compensation to the claimant. They further stated that in the said accident, as both the drivers of the vehicles had committed negligence, 50% liability for the accident was fastened on each of the driver. Therefore, the Tribunal had awarded Rs. 35,000/-to the claimant with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Not being satisfied with the award, the claimant has filed the above appeal for additional compensation of a sum of Rs. 1,15,000/-.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant argued that the claimant had sustained multiple bone fracture injuries on his right leg and on his right hand little finger and that these are permanent in nature. The Doctor had assessed the disability as 50%. The learned Counsel further argued that the Tribunal had not considered compensation under the head of attendant charges and loss of income during the medical treatment period.
On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the Appellant and on perusing the impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court is of the considered opinion that the claimant had sustained 50% disability. Therefore, this Court grants an additional compensation to the claimant under the following heads:
Rs. 50,000/- towards disability;
Rs. 10,000/- towards pain and sufferings;
Rs. 5,000/- towards transport expenses;
Rs. 5,000/- towards nutritious food;
Rs. 5,000/- towards attendant charges;
Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of earnings; and
Rs. 10,000/- towards medical expenses.
In total this Court awards a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-together with interest. As per the Tribunal''s decision, there had been a contributory negligence of 50% on the side of the claimant. Therefore, this Court taking this fact into consideration decides to deduct 50% of the compensation awarded. Hence, this Court grants Rs. 50,000/-as compensation to the claimant. Already, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 35,000/-. Hence, this Court, grants an additional amount of Rs. 15,000/-to the claimant, as this is found to be fair and equitable. The additional 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.
Therefore, this Court directs the second and fourth Respondents/Insurance Companies, to deposit the balance compensation amount of a sum of Rs. 15,000/-to be shared equally amongst them, together with interest thereon, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
After such deposit has been made, it is open to the claimant to withdraw compensation with accrued interest thereon lying in the credit of M.C.O.P. No. 130 of 1997, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Judge, Hosur, after filing necessary payment out application in accordance with law.
In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. Consequently, the Award and Decree dated 19.08.1999, made in M.C.O.P. No. 130 of 1997, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Judge, Hosur, is modified. There is no order as to costs.