BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 04/12/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU C.M.A. (MD) No.1541 of 2008 and M.P. (MD) No.2 of 2008 M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., No.30, Ramakrishnapuram North, Karur - 1. ... Appellant Vs. 1. A.Renganathan 2. K.P.Tamilselvan ... Respondents (R2 remained ex parte before the Tribunal. Hence, notice to R2 may be dispensed with) Prayer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of The Motor Vehicles Act 1988 against order dated 20.07.2007 made in M.C.O.P. No.691 of 2004 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Judge), Karur. !For Appellant ... Mr.R.Maheswaran ^For Respondents ... Mr.N.Shanmuga Selvam * * * :ORDER
The appellant is the second respondent in M.C.O.P. No.691 of 2004 on the
file of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Karur. The first respondent filed
the claim petition praying a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by
him in a road accident, which took place on 12.09.2004 at 5.00 p.m. while he was
walking along the Karur-Salem bye-pass road. It is stated that a lorry bearing
registration No.TN 28 Y 3868 was driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed
against him and thereby, he received injuries including a fracture. He spent
Rs.75,000/- for medical expenses. He was earning Rs.4,500/- per month by
working as mechanic in Nanban Auto Diesel Works. The lorry driver was
responsible for the accident. The second respondent has insured the vehicle of
the first respondent.
2. In the Counter filed by the second respondent Insurance Company, it
is alleged that the appellant colluded with one Mathivanan, S/o.Thiyagarajan and
falsely implicated the lorry belonging to the first respondent. The lorry
mentioned in the petition is not responsible for the accident. The allegations
as regards the avocation, income and nature of injuries are denied. The
compensation claimed is excessive. Hence, the petition may be dismissed.
3. The learned Tribunal Judge has awarded a sum of Rs.52,800/- to be
payable by the respondents and their liabilities was determined jointly and
severally. The appellant has challenged the said award on two grounds in this
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. Firstly, on the genuineness of the wound
certificate, discharge summary pertained to the claimant issued by Dr.G.C.
Orthopaedic and Trauma Centre in Karur and nextly with respect to quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
4. Heard both sides.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant Mr.R.Maheshwaran, argued in
vehemence to convince this Court that material alterations have been made in the
wound certificate which originated at the first occasion, immediately after the
alleged accident and that the Tribunal has not appreciated the oral evidence on
record and the relevant documents properly but has rendered findings which are
not sustainable.
6. This Court called for the entire records in the M.C.O.P. proceedings
and the file regarding crime No.1400/2004 on the file of the Karur Police
Station as well to ascertain the genuineness of the documents which are under
challenge before this Court. The accident took place on 12.09.2004 and the
claimant was admitted to the above said infirmary on that day itself. It is the
contention of the appellant that there are some corrections with regard to the
date and the registration number of the lorry in the wound certificate which
would lead to an observation that it is bogus claim. In the wound certificate
issued by Dr.J.Rajnikanth, who is Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon in the said
hospital, it is stated that on 12.09.2004 at 5.00 p.m. while the claimant was
walking along the Karur-Salem bye-pass road, the lorry bearing registration
No.TN28 Y 3868 dashed against him and hence, the accident took place. This
Court do not find any correction either in the date or in the registration
number of the vehicle in the wound certificate. The learned counsel for the
appellant also draws attention of this Court to Ex.B1, which is the claim
petition given by this claimant to the appellant, stating that he himself
admitted in the Hospital on 13.09.2004. Even though Ex.A5 shows the date of
admission as 12.09.2004, the said discrepancy is not a material one so as to
affect the case of the claimant.
7. This Court has also perused the First Information Report lodged in
the police station and other relevant records annexed thereto and there is no
corrections in the material particulars. The Tribunal Judge has observed that
the Doctor by name J.Rajnikanth deposed that if the number of the vehicle was
wrongly written, it would have been corrected. It is a hypothetical question
for which his answer stood as such. In fact, there is no alteration with regard
to date and registration number of the vehicle.
8. The cumulative effect of the above said discussion would go a long
way to show that the documents maintained and issued by the hospital are genuine
and there is no circumstance to smell a rat upon them. In this regard, the
observations of the Tribunal have to be confirmed. It is concluded that the
accident took place as described by the claimant. By going through the oral
evidence, the Tribunal has also anchored responsibility on the lorry driver for
causing the accident. Interference with the said observations is not warranted.
9. The next limb of contention of the learned counsel for the appellant
is that without any document to show the income of the claimant, the Tribunal
has fixed Rs.3,000/- per month as income of the claimant which is not
sustainable. In like cases, there could be no documentary piece of evidence to
show the income of the parties. It is his version that he was earning
Rs.4,500/- by working as mechanic in a workshop. There is nothing wrong on the
part of the Tribunal to fix Rs.3,000/- as monthly income.
10. Adverting to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal has awarded a
sum of Rs.10,000/- for the difficulties to be experienced by the claimant in
ordinary pursuits and a lump sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of income,
Rs.5,000/- for pain and sufferings and Rs.17,300/- on account of medical
expenses as borne out by records.
11. In the considered view of this Court, there is no error committed by
the Tribunal to arrive at the conclusion with regard to various heads of
compensation. They are all confirmed by this Court. It could not be stated
that the quantum is excessive. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal does not merit
for consideration. It suffers dismissal.
12. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
srm
To
The Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal (Sub Judge),
Karur.