AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C.S. Karnan, J.—The appellant/4th respondent has preferred the present appeal in C.M.A.(MD). No. 112 of 2008, against the judgment
and decree passed in M.C.O.P. No. 150 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Pattukottai. The
petitioner has filed the claim in M.C.O.P. No. 150 of 2004, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- from the respondents for the
injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident. It was submitted that on 04.04.2002, at about 08.00 a.m., in the early morning hours, when
the petitioner was travelling as a pillion rider in the Hero Honda Motor cycle bearing registration No. TN-49H-0765, which was ridden by one
Rajapandian from Pillaiyar to Neduvakkottai and when it was near Pillaiyur Government Higher Secondary School, the 1st respondents TVS-50
vehicle bearing registration No. TN-49H-1932, coming on the same road and ridden at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner dashed
against the Hero Honda Motorcycle and caused the accident. The petitioner was thrown out of the vehicle and sustained severe injuries in his right
tort. He was immediately admitted at Vinodhagan Hospital. Subsequently, he received treatment at Government Hospital and at Private Hospital.
Due to the injuries sustained by him, he is not able to do his work as before. Hence, the petitioner has filed the claim against the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and
4th respondents. The 1st and 2nd respondents are the owner and insurer of the TVS-50 motorcycle bearing registration No. TN-49H-0765.
The 2nd respondent, in his counter has denied the averments in the claim that the 1st respondents vehicle had been insured with them at the time
of accident and also denied that the driver of the 1st respondent''s vehicle rider had a valid driving licence at the time of accident. It was submitted
that the 1st respondents vehicle had not been involved in the accident as the complaint regarding the accident had been registered on 03.09.2002,
only i.e., after a delay of 151 days from the date of the alleged accident that took place on 04.04.2002. The reasons given in the F.I.R. for delay in
filing the complaint was also not admitted and it was submitted that such reasons had been given as an after thought. It was submitted that the
petitioner had colluded with the 1st respondent and lodged a false case. The averments in the claim regarding nature of injuries, medical treatment
period and medical expenses have also not admitted. It was submitted that as the petitioner had not sustained any disability and that he is able to
do his normal work as he used to do before the accident. It was submitted that the claim was excessive.
The 3rd respondent in his counter has submitted that the 3rd respondents vehicle under had ridden his motor cycle in a careful and cautious
manner and that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent riding by the rider of the 1st respondent''s vehicle and as such the 3rd
respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. It was submitted that as no complaint had been filed against the rider of the 3rd respondents
motor cycle, only the 1st and 2nd respondent, being the owner and insurer of the offending motorcycle are liable to pay compensation to the
petitioner. Hence, it was prayed the claim as against the 3rd respondent.
The 4th respondent in his counter has denied the averments in the claim regarding age, income and occupation of the petitioner. It was also
submitted that the 3rd respondent''s vehicle rider did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of accident and that the 3rd respondent''s
vehicle was not covered under a valid RC, FC and Insurance Policy at the time of accident. It was submitted that the accident had occurred only
due to the rash and negligent riding by the rider of the 1st respondent''s motor cycle. It was submitted that the complaint regarding the accident had
been lodged after a delay of four months and 28 days and that no reasonable explanation had been given by the petitioner for the delay. It was
submitted that as the Criminal case has been filed against the 1st respondent''s vehicle rider, the 3rd and 4th respondents are not necessary parties
in the claim. The averments in the claim regarding nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, medical treatment period and medical expenses
incurred were also not admitted. It was submitted that the petitioner had sustained only simple injuries and had not sustained any permanent
disability or loss of earning capacity. It was submitted that the claim was excessive.
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed three issues for consideration in the case name:
(1) Due to whose negligence was the accident caused and did the petitioner sustained injuries only in the said accident?;
(2) Is the petitioner entitled to get compensation? If so, are the respondents jointly or severally liable to pay compensation?;
(3) What is the quantum of compensation, which the petitioner is entitled to get?.
On the petitioner''s side, two witnesses were examined and thirteen documents were marked namely: Ex. P1-F.I.R.; Ex. P2-wound certificate; Ex.
P3-legal certificate issued to petitioner by Vinodhagan Hospital dated 04.04.2002; Ex. P4-Motor Vehicle Inspector''s Reports for the motor cycle
bearing registration No. TN-49H-0765 and TN-49H-1932, dated 06.09.2002; Ex. P5-Copy of RC of Motorcycle bearing registration No. TN-
49H-1932; Ex. P6-Insurance policy of 1st respondent''s vehicle, wherein period of insurance coverage is from 06.08.2001 to 05.08.2002; Ex.
P7-driving licence of C. Kamaraj; Ex. P8-RC of motorcycle bearing registration TN-49H-0765; Ex. P9-policy of Hero Honda Splendor Motor
Cycle wherein coverage has been mentioned to be valid from 26.06.2001 to 25.06.2002; Ex. P10-driving licence of Rajapandian; Ex. P11-
discharge card issued by Vinodhagan Hospital to petitioner, wherein treatment period has been shown from 04.04.2002 to 11.04.2002; Ex. P12-
medical bills (series); Ex. P13-disability certificate issued by Dr. Chellappan, dated 19.03.2005. On the respondent''s side, one witness was
examined and one document namely the report sent by CBCID Division at Oriental Insurance Company, Trichy Branch, to the D.I.G.
PW. 1, the petitioner had adduced evidence that the accident had been caused only due to the rash and negligent riding by the rider of the 1st
respondent''s vehicle. However, in his cross examination had deposed evidence which is contradictory to the statements made by him in the claim
and in his chief examination. The Tribunal on scrutiny of his cross examination observed that contributory negligence on the part of the 3rd
respondents motorcycle also cannot be ruled out. He had further deposed that the owner of the 1st respondent''s motorcycle namely C. Kamaraj,
had not been added as a necessary party in the claim and that the 1st respondents vehicle was not involved in the said accident. He had further
deposed that he does not know the owner of the 3rd respondents motorcycle. The Tribunal observed that the complaint had been filed after a
delay of 151 days and that the petitioner had received treatment as an inpatient at the Hospital for only one week. He had further deposed that he
had went home immediately after taking treatment and that the Orathanadu Police Station was situated only at a distance of 4 Kms from his house.
Hence, the Tribunal on observing that the petitioner had not given valid reasons to explain the delay in lodging the complaint opined that the
petitioner, after sustained injuries in some other manner had filed a false claim, as an after thought. PW. 1, had further admitted that as the 1st
respondent''s vehicle was not involved in the accident, he is not liable to pay any compensation to him and that he had mistakenly added the 1st
and 2nd respondents as necessary parties in the claim.
RW. 1, Kumaranandham, the Senior Accountant, in the 2nd respondents firm had adduced evidence that the 1st respondent''s vehicle had not
involved in the accident. He had further deposed that the complaint regarding the alleged accident had been made only after 151 days from the
date of alleged accident and that the petitioner in order to get compensation for injuries sustained by him in some other manner had colluded with
the 1st respondent and filed the false claim.
The Tribunal observed that the accident had been caused only by the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the 3rd respondent''s vehicle and
that he had negligently dashed the TVS-50 coming in the opposite direction without noticing it. The Tribunal opined that the cause of the accident
cannot be laid down as against the 1st respondents vehicle rider, merely because the F.I.R. had been filed against him.
PW. 2, Doctor had adduced evidence that the 3rd and 4th toes of the petitioner''s right foot had been severed and he had further deposed that
the petitioner had sustained 20% permanent disability and in support of his evidence, he had marked Ex. P13, disability certificate. The Tribunal,
on observing from scrutiny of oral and documentary evidence held that the petitioner had sustained injuries in a road accident and hence is entitled
to get compensation. Hence, the Tribunal, on observing that the accident had been caused due to the rash and negligent riding by the rider of the
3rd respondent''s vehicle. Held the 3rd and 4th respondents liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.
The Tribunal on observing that no documentary evidence had been marked to prove the income of the petitioner held that the notional income
of the petitioner was Rs. 1,500/- per month. The Tribunal on observing that the age of the petitioner was 35 years, at the time of accident and on
adopting a multiplier of ""17"" awarded a sum of Rs. 61,200/-(Rs. 1,500/-x12x20/100x17) as compensation under the head of loss of income due
to disability of 20%; Rs. 7,500/- was awarded towards medical expenses as per medical bills marked as Ex. P12; Rs. 5,000/- was awarded
under the head of pain and suffering; Rs. 10,000/- was awarded under the head of Transport expenses, nutrition and other medical expenses. In
total, the Tribunal, awarded a sum of Rs. 83,700/- as compensation to the petitioner and directed the 4th respondent, on behalf of the 3rd
respondent, to deposit the said sum together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till date of deposit, with
costs, within two months from the date of its order. The claim as against the 1st and 2nd respondents were dismissed.
Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the 4th respondent/New India Assurance Company Limited, Nagapattinam Town, has
preferred the present appeal. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent has contended in his appeal that the Tribunal, after disbelieving the F.I.R.,
marked as Ex. P1, ought to have dismissed the claim petition as against the appellant also. It was contended that as the accused as per the F.I.R.
was the driver of the TVS-50 vehicle bearing registration No. TN-49H-1932 and in the absence of any contra proof, the finding of the Tribunal
that the driver of the Hero Honda alone was a rash and negligent is nothing but inventing a third case. It was also contended that the Tribunal erred
in awarding compensation as against the appellant, when the claimant is the pillion rider of the vehicle bearing registration No. TN-49H-0765,
when there is no Insurance coverage by payment of additional premium even assuming without conceding that the driver of the Hero Honda
motorcycle was also at fault. It was contended that the award passed as against the appellant was erroneous and against the provisions of Motor
Vehicle Accident and hence it was prayed to set aside the award passed by the Tribunal.
The learned counsel for the claimant submits that the 3rd respondent''s vehicle had been insured with the 4th respondent i.e., appellant herein.
Considering the mode of accident, the liability had been fixed on the appellant herein. However, initially the F.I.R. had been registered against the
rider of the TVS-50 but subsequently, it was not proved. The claimant had sustained 20% disability and the 3rd and 4th toes of his left leg had
been amputated. The claimant had undergone treatment at a private hospital. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence and medical records,
the compensation amount had been assessed. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondents submits that the 3rd respondent is not liable to pay any
compensation, since the rider of the motorcycle had not committed the said accident.
The learned counsel for the 4th respondent submits that initially the F.I.R. had been registered against the 2nd respondent herein and
subsequently the claimant had turned hostile and changed his earlier declaration, as an after thought.
On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the highly competent counsels on all sides and on perusing the
impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the conclusions arrived at regarding negligence, liability and quantum
of compensation. This Court is of the further view that the Tribunal had recorded the evidence of the injured witness and come to the said
conclusions regarding negligence. As such, the liability had been fastened on the owner of the offending vehicle. At the time of accident, the
Insurance policy was in force and hence the tribunal had directed the Insurance Company to pay the said amount. The Court is of the further view
that the claimant''s 3rd and 4th toe of right leg had been amputated and the Doctor had assessed the disability at 20%. As the age of the claimant
was 35 years, the quantum of compensation awarded is reasonable. As per the Court records, it is seen that this Court imposed a condition on the
appellant to deposit the entire compensation amount with accrued interest. The rate of interest fixed by the Tribunal remains unaltered.
It is open to the claimant to withdraw the entire compensation amount with accrued interest thereon, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P. No. 150
of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Pattukottai, after filing a memo, along with a copy of this order. In
the result, the above appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the award and decree passed in M.C.O.P. No. 150 of 2004, on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Pattukottai, dated 15.11.2006, is confirmed. No costs.