BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 28/01/2010 Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.SUDHAKAR Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (MD)No.101 of 2010 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2010 National Insurance Company Ltd., 175A, Great Cotton Road, Thoothukudi District. ... Appellant/2nd Respondent vs 1.Lingavel, 2.V.Rengaraj. (2nd respondent was set ex parte, hence no notice is necessary to him) ... Respondents/Petitioner and 1st respondent Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 3.3.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.No.110 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Sivakasi. !For appellant ... Mr.S.Kumar ^For 1st respondent ... No appearance ----- :JUDGMENT
The National Insurance Company is on appeal challenging the award dated
3.3.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.No.110 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Sivakasi.
2. It is a case of injury. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-
The accident in this case happened on 11.4.2004. The injured claimant Lingavel,
40 years old, an agriculturist, was travelling on a two wheeler. He was hit by
a lorry insured with the appellant. In that accident, the said Lingavel
suffered fracture of both legs. He was treated at Sivakasi Government Hospital
and then at Bose Hospital, Madurai for three months as inpatient. He claimed a
sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for the disability suffered
consequent to the injuries stating that he was earning a sum of Rs.8,000/- per
month.
3. In support of the claim, before the Tribunal, the injured claimant
was examined as P.W.1 and Dr.Jegannathan as P.W.2. Exs.P-1 to P-11 were
marked. They are as follows:-
Ex.P-1 is the certified copy of F.I.R. dated 12.4.2004,
Ex.P-2 is the certified copy of accident register dated 11.4.2004,
Ex.P-3 is the certified copy of observation mahazar,
Ex.P-4 is the certified copy of wound certificate dated 11.4.2004,
Ex.P-5 is the certified coy of Motor vehicle Inspector’s Inspection
Report for Tanker Lorry dated 13.4.2004,
Ex.P-6 is the certified copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector’s Inspection
Report for TVS Suzuki dated 14.4.2004,
Ex.P-7 is the certified copy of charge sheet dated 19.8.2004,
Ex.P-8 is the certified copy of judgment in STC No.3767 of 2004 dated
1.9.2004,
Ex.P-9 is the medical bill Notes-2
Ex.P-10 is the disability certificate dated 26.11.2007 and
Ex.P-11 is the X-rays-2.
No oral or documentary evidence was let in on behalf of the appellant insurance
company, the second respondent before the Tribunal.
4. The Tribunal taking into consideration, the age, occupation, nature of
injury suffered, the disability assessed and the period of treatment, granted
the following amounts as compensation with interest at 7.5% per annum:-
Sl. No. Heads Amount granted by the Tribunal
1 Disability assessed at 84% Rs.1,26,000/-
2 Medical bills Rs.5,43,500/-
3 Pain and sufferings Rs.15,000/-
4 Transport to hospital and
extra nourishment Rs. 15,500/-
Total Rs.7,00,000/-
5. In appeal two contentions are raised by the learned counsel for the
appellant. The first one is that for the disability assessed at 84%, higher
compensation of Rs.1,26,000/- has been granted.
6. The nature of injuries suffered by the claimant in this case are crush
injuries of both legs. Extensive treatment has been given in a private hospital
and that is supported by Ex.P-9. It is also the evidence of the doctor who has
assessed the disability after four years that the disability is grave in nature,
in that, the bones have not property fused and the claimant cannot work or do
his normal activities as before. The claimant is an agriculturist and
therefore, there will be considerable loss in income consequent to the
disability. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in granting compensation for
pecuniary loss based on disability suffered and therefore, the compensation in a
sum of Rs.1,26,000/- is justified.
7. The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is
that the compensation granted towards medical bills is on the higher side and
the bills furnished include the cost of medical treatment taken in other private
hospitals besides the Bose Hospital, Madurai.
8. To dispute the medical bills no evidence was let in before the
Tribunal by the appellant insurance company. The Tribunal verified the medical
bills and had accepted it. When that is the case, without producing any
document or letting in evidence to show that the medical bills are inadmissible
under law no plea as stated above can be accepted in appeal. Hence, both the
contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant are rejected.
9. This Court finds no good reason to interfere with the compensation by
way of reduction. There is no dispute with regard to interest.
10. Finding no merit, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed at the
admission stage. Counsel for the appellant seeks for eight weeks’ time to
deposit the award amount and is granted and on such deposit, the claimant is
permitted to withdraw the same. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition
is closed. No costs.
ts
To
The Sub Judge,
(The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal),
Sivakasi.