IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 28 / 04 /2011 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.2480 OF 2010 & M.P.Nos.1 of 2010 and 2 of 2010 National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Rasi Plaza, West Radhakrishna Road, karur ... Appellant Versus 1.P.Ponnusamy 2.Thiruvengadam 3.Rajendran ... Respondents Prayer: This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the award and decree made in M.C.O.P.No.551 of 2006, dated 29.07.2008, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Salem. For Appellant : Mr.N.Vijayaraghavan For Respondents : Mr.M.R.Thangavel (R-1) - - - J U D G M E N T
The above appeal has been filed by the appellant / National Insurance Company Limited against the award and decree made in M.C.O.P.No.551 of 2006, dated 29.07.2008, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Salem.
2.The short facts of the case are as follows:
On 07.02.2006 the petitioner was proceeding on his bicycle from Ammapalayam to Mookuthipalayam at around 07.00 p.m., when at that time, the first respondent had driven the van bearing Registration No.TN47-A-6188 and coming from the opposite direction and ran over the right foot of the petitioner, as a result, he sustained grievous injuries. Hence, the claimant claimed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- with interest as compensation.
3.The Insurance Company had filed a counter statement and resisted the claim petition. Actually, on 07.02.2006, the petitioner was travelling on a two wheeler along with his brother-in-law as pillion rider, when at that time, the petitioner inserted his foot inside the wheel, as such the accident had occurred. The rider of the motorcycle was not possessing a valid driving licence and the vehicle was not having valid records. The age, income and occupation of the petitioner are denied.
4.On the plea of both parties, the Tribunal had framed two issues for consideration, namely;
(i)Was the accident committed by the driver of the tempo van bearing Registration No.TN47-A-6188 in a rash and negligent manner?
(iii)Whether the claimant is entitled to receive compensation? If so, what is the quantum?
5.On the side of the claimant three witnesses had been examined and twelve documents were marked. On the side of the respondent two witnesses had been examined and two documents were marked.
6.PW1 had adduced evidence stating that on 07.02.2006, he was proceeding on his bicycle from Ammapalayam towards his residence, when at that time, the tempo van coming from the opposite direction at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, noticing the same, he had alighted from the cycle and was standing on the mud road, at that time, the tempo had ran over his foot. Immediately he was taken to the RBS Hospital by his son-in-law. To substantiate the accident, he had lodged a complaint to the concern police officer who registered a case against the driver of the van, charge sheet also filed against him. The Motor Vehicle Inspector had conducted an enquiry against the tempo and submitted the report, the tempo driver had pleaded guilty. PW1 further adduced evidence that he had sustained bone fracture injuries on his right foot. PW2 doctor had examined the claimant and adduced evidence stating that the claimant had sustained lacerated wounds on his right foot i.e., 15 x 2 cms, besides similar injuries sustained on his right hand thumb measuring 5 x 1 cms. The fractured bone on his foot is mal-united, so the claimant feels discomfort while walking, squatting and standing.
7.On considering the evidence of the witnesses, the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the driver of the tempo had committed the accident in a reckless manner, therefore, the insurer of the vehicle is liable to pay compensation. Accordingly, the compensation had been assessed as mentioned below:-
Rs.39,000/- towards disability;
Rs.5,000/- for transport;
Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering;
Rs.5,000/- against nutrition;
Rs.5,000/- for attender charges;
Rs.26,347/- towards medical expenses;
In total, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.90,347/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation.
8.Aggrieved by the said award, the Insurance Company has filed the above appeal.
9.Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the claimant himself informed the doctor that he was travelling as pillion rider along with the rider of the motorcycle who is the son-in-law of the claimant. The motorcycle is not having valid records and the rider of the motorcycle was not possessing a driving licence. Therefore, the claimant has setup the first and second respondents for claiming compensation, who had admitted that the driver had committed the accident and both respondents had furnished the vehicle particulars, ownership particulars, insurance particulars and particulars about the driver. As such, the claimant had approached the Tribunal on a false claim.
10.Learned counsel for the claimant argued that any number of allegations could be made, but such allegations have to be proved by way of authenticated documentary evidence, in this case such a procedure was not carried out. The concerned investigating Police Officer and Motor Vehicle Inspector were both attached to the Government as responsible officers, so their reports had a vital bearing on the claim case. Therefore, the claim is bona-fide and cannot be disputed.
11.On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels and on perusing the impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court is of the considered opinion that if the appellant / Insurance Company felt that the claim is bogus, they ought to have taken proper legal steps before the concerned authorities forum, unless and if the case is proved before such a criminal forum that the claimant claiming compensation on the basis of false statement and false records is genuine, otherwise, the Court cannot interfere with the findings of the learned Tribunal on the liability issue. Hence, this Court confirms the impugned decision of the learned Tribunal. Therefore, this Court directs the appellant / National Insurance Company to comply with the Tribunal order within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order by way of depositing the entire amount to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.551 of 2006, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Salem. After such deposit being made, it is open to the claimant to withdraw the said compensation amount lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.551 of 2006, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Salem, after filing a Memo along with this order.
12.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the Award and Decree, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem made in M.C.O.P.No.551 of 2006, dated 29.07.2008 is confirmed. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
28 / 04 / 2011
r n s
Index : Yes.
Internet: Yes.
C.S.KARNAN, J.
r n s
To
The Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Salem.
Pre delivery order made in
C.M.A.No. 2480 OF 2010
28 / 04 / 2011