AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G. Rajasuria, J.—The unsuccessful second respondent, the United Insurance Company Limited appeals.
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is focussed to get set aside the award passed in M.A.C.O.P. No. 163 of 2004 dated 21.10.2005 by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court), Dindigul.
At the stage of admission itself, after hearing both sides, this appeal is being disposed of by the following order.
The facts giving rise to the filing of this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal would run thus:
The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., is the appellant herein, who filed the appeal being aggrieved by the judgment of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Fast Track Court), Dindigul, in awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,05,858/- (Rupees One Lakh Five Thousand Eight Hundred
and Fifty Eight only) under the following sub-heads:
(i) For Pain and Sufferings - Rs. 10,000.00
(ii) For Medicines as per Ex.P.4 - Rs. 15,477.00
(iii) For Medicines as per Ex.P.5 - Rs. 2,781.00
(iv) For Permanent Disability - Rs. 57,600.00
(v) For Transport Charges - Rs. 2,000.00
(vi) For Nutritious Food - Rs. 4,000.00
(vii) For Loss of Incomes - Rs. 9,000.00
(viii) For Future Medical Treatment - Rs. 5,000.00
---------------
Rs. 1,05,858.00
---------------
The grounds of appeal inter alia would run thus:
(i) The accident occurred due to the fault of the injured and not due to the driver of the vehicle belonged to first respondent in M.C.O.P, the owner
of the taxi.
(ii) The compensation was not quantified in accordance with the dicta laid down by the Honourable Apex Court.
(iii) The Tribunal simply assumed that the injured was earning a sum of Rs. 3,000/-.
(iv) Accordingly, the appellant prayed for setting aside the award of compensation.
Per contra, the learned Counsel for the claimant/first respondent herein, would contend that the amount awarded is very moderate and in fact, if
strict standards are applied, he would be entitled to more compensation also as he sustained grievous injuries and plate was fixed in his fractured
part of the leg.
The points for determination in this appeal are:
(i) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the first respondent in M.C.O.P or due to the rash and negligent
act of the injured claimant?
(ii) Whether the compensation is on the higher side?
Point No: (i)
The quint-essence of the case of the claimant is that while he was driving his two wheeler along the Dindigul-Trichy main road from south to
north, the taxi belonging to the first respondent came in a rash and negligent manner and took a turn and dashed as against the claimant and thereby
caused grievous injury to him. Relating to the fracture of the left leg sustained by the claimant, he took treatment in the hospital between
21.12.2003 and 04.01.2004.
The police also registered a case. The grievance of the appellant Insurance Company is that the trial Court without appreciating the evidence,
simply fixed the responsibility on the driver of the taxi.
Perused the order of the Tribunal which relied upon the deposition of the injured himself who drove the two wheeler at the time of the accident
and placed reliance on the fact that the driver of the taxi was not examined so as to torpedo the evidence of the injured and accordingly awarded
the compensation. Such an approach appears to be correct for the reason that if at all, the Insurance Company had any challenge relating to the
fixation of responsibility on the driver of the taxi, he ought to have taken steps to get the injured summoned and examined before the Court.
Without even raising its little finger in taking such steps before the Tribunal, the Insurance Company at the appellate stage, is not justified in finding
fault with the finding given by the Tribunal. It is a trite proposition of law that in matters of awarding compensation, the Tribunal is not expected to
approach the evidence of the injured with draconian eye, even though the driver of the taxi was not examined. The Tribunal adverted to the fact
that while the injured was riding his two wheeler from south to north along Dindigul - Trichy main road, the offending vehicle namely the taxi which
stood in stationary position in front of the hospital, was suddenly started by its driver and he took a right turn without showing signal resulting in
causing the accident. It is common knowledge that the driver of the taxi, who is taking such a turn, should be cautious in doing so, so as to avoid
any possible accident. But, in this case, no such precaution has been taken by the driver of the taxi. Hence, in such a case, I cannot find fault with
the finding of the Tribunal. Accordingly, Point No. (i) is decided.
Point No: (ii)
The learned Counsel for the appellant would develop his argument to the effect that without any basis simply the Tribunal fixed the quantum of
income as Rs. 3,000/-. I am of the considered opinion that even a coolie now a days, is earning a sum not less than Rs. 100/- per day and as such
the Tribunal took the monthly income as Rs. 3,000/-. Here, in this case, the claimant happens to be a person who is fabricating iron boxes. In my
opinion, no one would engage in the trade of fabricating iron boxes without even getting an income of Rs. 100/- per day. This sort of common
sense approach is absolutely required on the part of the Tribunal and the Tribunal also correctly adhered to such approach.
However, I could see considerable force in the submission made by the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company that without any basis a
sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) was awarded towards further medical expenses for removing the plate. In page No. 7 of the
certified copy of the judgment, the Tribunal simply assessed the quantum at Rs. 5,000/- for future medical treatment. In my opinion, for that there is
no plausible medical certificate. I recollect that as per the cantena of decisions of the Honourable Apex Court, in awarding the compensation for
future medical treatment, there should be clear evidence and in the absence of it, it should not be awarded blindly. In fact, in Government
Hospitals, if he wants to get the plate removed, then I am of the considered opinion that he need not incur an expenditure of Rs. 5,000/-. Keeping
this in view, I would like to delete the assessment of compensation of Rs. 5,000/- under the head ''future medical expenses'' from the total
compensation and in respect of other sub-heads, there is no reason to interfere.
In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of with the above finding. Consequently, connected M.P. (MD) No. 1 of 2007 and
Caveat No. 773 of 2006 are also closed.