AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C.S. Karnan, J.—The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the Appellant/first Respondent against the Award and Decree,
dated 15.03.2004, made in M.C.O.P. No. 248 of 1998, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional Sub Court, Salem,
awarding a compensation of Rs. 90,710/- together with 9% interest per annum, from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of
compensation.
Aggrieved by the said Award and Decree, the Appellant/first Respondent has filed the above appeal praying to set aside the award and decree
passed by the Tribunal.
The short facts of the case are as follows:
The Late. Gopalsamy @ Gopal was a national permit lorry driver and he was earning a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per mensum, including the batta. On
17.09.1997, himself and his friend went to Koottathupatty in TVS XL motorcycle bearing registration No. TAL 2284 after finishing their work.
While they were returning back, at about 5.00 p.m. while they reached Hasthampatty Haneffa Complex, an Enfield bullet belonging to N.C.C.
Office bearing registration No. 88A, 35913A, which was driven by the Palanisamy/second Respondent in a rash and negligent manner and dashed
against the TVS XL. Due to which, the Late. Gopalsamy @ Gopal sustained grievous injuries on his right leg. His right leg below the knee got
fractured and it was broken. Immediately, he was taken to the Government Hospital, Salem and given first aid and then he was admitted in Kiruba,
Private Nursing Home, where operation was performed and steel plate was fixed in the place, where the bone had got broken. He had undergone
treatment for nearly a month. But, the external injuries were treated except one injury had not healed and puss was formed and the calf muscles
had been decomposed. Again he was admitted in the Ganesan Hospital, Salem, where a further operation was performed. Due to the said
accident, he was not able to do his routine work as before the accident beside he had sustained permanent disability. His right leg had sustained
fracture, it could not be possible to drive any lorry further. The accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the
Enfield bullet, belonging to N.C.C. Office, bearing registration No. 88A 35913A. Regarding the said accident, the Hasthampatty Police has
registered a criminal case under Sections 279 and 337 of I.P.C. against the rider of the Enfield Bullet in Crime No. 449/1997. As such, he claimed
a compensation of Rs. 1,65,500/-, but restricted it to Rs. 1,00,000/- before the Tribunal. However, during the pendency of the case before the
Tribunal, the Petitioner expired. Therefore, his legal heirs, first and second Respondent herein, were impleaded as parties.
The Palanisamy/second Respondent/in his Counter has resisted the claim petition, which reads as follows:
The alleged accident is hereby specifically denied as false and the Petitioner is put to strict proof of the same. It is absolutely false to allege that the
accident took place on 17.09.1999 at about 05.99 p.m. opposite to Henefa Complex at Hasthampatty, Salem-7.
It is true that the Hasthampatty Police has registered the case against the second Respondent under Sections 279 and 337 of I.P.C. in Crime No.
449/1997 and the complaint was taken in the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. III of Salem and the charges were framed against the second
Respondent and Trial was also conducted against the second Respondent and six more witnesses were examined to prove the charges against the
second Respondent. Finally this Hon''ble Judicial Magistrate No. 3 of Salem, verdicted that the second Respondent herein was not guilty and the
second Respondent was acquitted from the case in S.T.R.198/98 in Crime No. 449/1997 on 10.06.1999.
In the petition Column No. 10 the Petitioner has alleged that he was riding the TVS XL 2284. The same was alleged in the complaint in Crime No.
449/1997 lodged by one Sengoden before Hasthampatti Police. The same is the content in the FIR of the Crime No. 449/1997 also. But, the
Petitioner was examined as PW2 in the S.T.R. No. 198/98 in Crime No. 449/97. In that case, the Petitioner deposed that he was not riding the
TVS XL, and he has clearly stated that the complainant of the Crime No. 449/97, Sengoden was riding the TVS XL. The alleged riding by the
Petitioner is hereby denied as false. The Petitioner has to prove that who was riding the TVS XL at the time of the alleged accident. Apart from
that the Petitioner has to produce his driving licence before this Hon''ble Court. The Petitioner is neither the owner of the vehicle TVS XL bearing
registration No. TAL 2284 nor the rider of the said vehicle. The Petitioner has to prove his case.
No accident happened as alleged in the petition. The second Respondent was never involved in the alleged accident.
The amount of compensation claimed in Column No. 21 of the petition are all false and are hereby specifically denied. The amount of
compensation claimed in the petition is too much, excessive and exhorbitant. The Respondents were not involved in the alleged accident, hence
they have no need to pay any compensation to this Petitioner.
It is atrocious to allege that the Petitioner sustained grievous injury on his right leg and that his right leg below the knee got fractured and it was
broken.
It is false to allege that the Petitioner immediately after the accident was taken to the Government Hospital Salem for first aid and then he was
admitted in Kiruba Private Nursing Home.
It is atrocious to allege that the Petitioner underwent an operation and plate was fixed in the place where the bone got broken, and it is false to
allege that the Petitioner has spent Rs. 30,000/- in the Hospital. The Petitioner was not involved in any accident with this second Respondent and
he had not sustained any external injury or any fracture in his leg. The Petitioner has to prove his case.
It is false to allege that the Petitioner again was admitted at the Ganesan Hospital, Salem and he spent Rs. 20,000/- in the Hospital. It is atrocious
to allege that the Petitioner will take one year time to move from the bed.
It is atrocious to allege that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the second Respondent. It is submitted that the second
Respondent is a law abiding citizen and respectable Retired Army Person and he never drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. He strictly
follows the traffic rules, and he never met with any accident in his life.
The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed two issues for the consideration namely:
(i) Whether the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the second Respondent Corporation Bus?
(ii) Whether the second and third Petitioners are entitled for compensation, If so what is the quantum of compensation?
On the Petitioner''s side, the third claimant was examined as PW1 and one Mr. Velayutham was examined as PW2 and fourteen documents
were marked as Exs.P1 to P14 namely Ex.P1-Xerox copy of the FIR, Ex.P2-Letter sent to the first Respondent, Ex.P3-Letter sent to the second
Respondent, Ex.P4-Case Chit issued by the Kiruba Hospital, Ex.P5-Death Certificate of the first Petitioner, Ex.P6-Legal Heir Certificate, Exs.P7
& P8-Medical Bills, Ex.P9-Receipt towards purchasing of blood, Ex.P10-Receipt for X-ray, Ex.P11-Diagnosis, Ex.P12-Discharge Summary,
Ex.P13-judgment passed by the Lower Court, Ex.P14-Medical Bills. On the Respondent''s side, Mr. Palanisamy, the second Respondent, was
examined as RW1 and five documents were marked as Ex.R1 to R5 namely Ex.R1-Xerox copy of the Complaint given in Hasthampatti, Ex.R2-
Evidence of the Sengodan, Ex.R3-Evidence of the Gopal, Ex.R4-Evidence of the Dr. Sivaprakasam and Ex.R5-Motor Vehicle Inspector''s
Report.
PW1 had adduced evidence stating that on 17.09.1997 at about 05.00 p.m. the second Respondent had driven his motor cycle in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed against the first Petitioner. Due to the said accident, the first claimant had sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he
was taken to the Government Hospital at Salem for further and special treatment. Further, he had undergone treatment at Kiruba Hospital and then
at Ganesan Hospital. The said accident was registered by the Hasthampatty Police Station. When, the claim petition was pending, the injured
patient had expired. As such, the second and third claimants proceeded with the case. Further, the PW1 in her evidence stating that her
father/injured person had undergone treatment at various hospitals and also a surgical operation was conducted, wherein a steel plate was fixed on
his right leg, even though the injured person had expired, since the treatment proved a failure.
After considering the evidence of the PW1 and PW2 and the documents marked as exhibits, the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the
accident had happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the second Respondent and awarded the compensation as follows:
Towards loss of income : Rs. 80,000/-
Medical expenses : Rs. 6,710/-
Pain and suffering : Rs. 2,000/-
Extra-nourishment : Rs. 1,000/-
Transport expenses : Rs. 500/-
Damages to clothes : Rs. 500/-
In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 90,710/- as compensation, together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the
petition till the date of payment of compensation. Further, the Tribunal directed the Respondents to deposit the said compensation amount within a
period of two months from the date of its order, into the credit of the M.C.O.P. No. 248 of 1998, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Additional Sub Court, Salem. In turn, the said amount to be deposited in any one of a nationalised bank for a period of three years under
the fixed deposit scheme. Further, the Tribunal permitted the claimants to withdraw the interest of their apportioned share amount, once in three
months. Accordingly ordered.
Aggrieved by the said Award and Decree, the Appellant/first Respondent has filed the above appeal to set aside the award and decree passed
by the Tribunal.
Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant argued that the adopted method is not pertinent. The Doctor was not examined and Wound
Certificate was also not produced. Further, the compensation amount awarded the by the Tribunal is also on higher side. Hence, he seeks to set
aside the award and decree passed by the Tribunal.
Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents argued that the injured sustained grievous injuries, which led to his death. Even after better
treatment, this also proved a failure. Further, the learned Counsel argued that the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is on lower side.
In any event the compensation amount should not be scaled down, since the affected person should be duly compensated.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by the learned Counsel appearing on either side and the award and
decree passed by the Tribunal, this Court is of the view that whether the case should be treated as fatal or grievous injuries. Compensation to be
assessed accordingly. For this clarification the learned Counsel appearing on either side consented to grant Rs. 76,710/- as total compensation.
Accordingly this appeal is ordered, which is fair and equitable.
On 20.06.2006, this Court imposed a condition on the Appellant to deposit 50% of the award amount, into the credit of the M.C.O.P. No.
248 of 1998, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional Sub Court, Salem. In turn the claimants were permitted to withdraw
the same. Therefore, now this Court hereby directs the Appellant to deposit the balance compensation amount as per the findings of this Court,
within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, into the credit of the M.C.O.P. No. 248 of 1998, on the file of the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional Sub Court, Salem. After such a deposit is being made, it is open to the claimants to withdraw their
apportioned share amount (equal share) with accrued interest thereon, lying in the credit of the M.C.O.P. No. 248 of 1998, on the file of the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional Sub Court, Salem.
In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the Award and Decree, dated 15.03.2004, made in M.C.O.P. No. 248 of
1998, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional Sub Court, Salem, is modified. No costs.