V.Veeraiah vs V.Raman, & Anr.

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

The injured claimant has filed this appeal aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim petition. According to the appellant, he was sitting on his Hero Honda Motorcycle on 27.05.2012 at about 4.30 p.m. when a white colour Innova car bearing Registration No.TN 59 BD 4149 belonging to the first respondent dashed against him and sped fast. The appellant suffered multiple injuries and suffered amputation on his left fore leg. The said vehicle is insured with the second respondent herein. The Tribunal however dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the appellant did not establish the actual involvement of the subject vehicle in the occurrence.

The learned counsel for the appellant would point out that no doubt there are discrepancies, but, they would not go to the root of the matter. The appellant was after all a Mason. The car was initially described as white Qualis. The fact that it turned out to be a white Innova ought not to make any difference. Similarly, in the arrest card, the vehicle number has been wrongly mentioned. But, the police after a detailed investigation filed a final report against the driver of the subject vehicle. This final report was also marked in evidence. The Tribunal chose to ignore the said vital piece of evidence. More than anything else, the respondents have not chosen to adduce any rebuttal evidence. The first respondent remained exparte. The second respondent did not take steps to examine Suresh, who allegedly drove the vehicle in question. When the respondents have not chosen to adduce contra evidence, the case of the claimant ought to be accepted. Suresh, who is figuring as an accused in this case is the best witness to speak about what happened. It is true that the Tribunal need not be bound by the filing of the final report against the said Suresh. But, when the said Suresh was not brought before the Tribunal to challenge the version of the claimant, this Court is of the view that the case of the claimant ought to be accepted. I therefore have no hesitation to set aside the award dated 14.10.2015 made in M.C.O.P.No.35 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Madurai. I am of the view that the claimant by applying the principles of preponderance of probabilities has established the involvement of the Innova car bearing Registration No.TN 09 BG 4146, which was insured with the second respondent herein.

As regard to the quantum is concerned, the claimant has suffered 37% disability. It is marked as Ex.P13. He has also suffered amputation. He was an inpatient for more than three months in the hospital. He has also incurred medical expenses. Therefore, the compensation payable to the claimant can be calculated as follows:

For Disability 37% x 3000 = Rs.1,11,000

For Pain and sufferings = Rs.1,00,000

For Transportation = Rs. 10,000

For Medical Expenses = Rs.1,12,168

For Loss of Income = Rs. 50,000

For Loss of amenities = Rs. 50,000

Total = Rs.4,33,168

The second respondent insurance company is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum with costs, from the date of petition till the date of realization, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.35 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Madurai. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the same by filing proper application before the Tribunal.

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No costs.