BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 27/04/2006
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN
C.M.A. (MD)No. 764 of 1997
Raja ... Appellant
Vs
1. P.SaravathiMeenakshi
2. Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd.,
City Branch Office,
1st Floor,
Chitra Complex
Trichy District. ... Respondents
Prayer
Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 against
the Judgment and award made in M.C.O.P.No.95 of 1994 dated 12.4.1996 on the file
of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal( III Additional District Judge), Trichy.
!For Appellant .... Mr.A.Saravanan
^For respondents .... No appearance-R1
Mr.K.Baskaran-R2 l
:JUDGMENT
This appeal has been preferred against the award passed in M.C.O.P.No. 95
of 1994 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (III Additional
District Judge) Trichy. The claimant in M.C.O.P.No.95of 94 is the appellant
herein.
2. The short facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal are
as follows:
On 10.8.1993 at about 5.30 p.m., the claimant was proceeding in his bi- cycle on
the left side of the road near Sethurampillai colony, Trichy-Pudukottai Main
Road, a lorry bearing Registration No.TNY-4431 belonging to the first respondent
was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the
claimant causing injuries on the right and left hands. The accident had
occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry
bearing Registration No.TNY- 4431. Hence the claimant has preferred the claim
petition claiming a sum of Rs.75,000/- towards compensation.
3. The first respondent remained exparte.
4. The second respondent in his counter has contended that the accident
had not occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
lorry bearing Registration TNY-4431. The accident had occurred only due to the
contributory negligence of the claimant.
5. Before the Tribunal, P.Ws1 and 2 were examined and ExP1 to P8 were
marked. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was let in on the side of the
respondent.
6. After going through the available evidence, the learned Tribunal has
fixed the liability on the driver, who drove the lorry bearing Registration
No.TNY-4431 which involved in the accident and has awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/-
towards compensation. Aggrieved by the said award of compensation, the claimant
has preferred this appeal.
7. Now the point for determination in this appeal is whether the award of
compensation in M.C.O.P.No.95 of 1994 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal(III Additional District Judge) Trichy is liable to be enhanced for the
reasons stated in the memorandum of appeal in C.M.A.No.764 of 1997?
8. The Point:
The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that for 30%
disability , the learned Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of
Rs.30,000/- without giving reliance on ExP3 . In this case, Ex P8 is the
Disability Certificate. P.W.2 is the Doctor who had issued Ex P8 Disability
Certificate and the Doctor has assessed the disability as 30%. But the learned
Tribunal has rejected the evidence of the doctor on the ground that it is seen
from ExP3 Accident Register that the claimant had sustained a fracture on the
right arm, but without X Ray, the doctor P.W.2 has assessed the disability as
30%. But only on the basis of Ex P3 Accident Register and on the basis of Ex P7
medical bills, the learned Tribunal has fixed the award of compensation as
Rs.30,000/-. There is no possibility for P.W.2 to assess the percentage of
disability. The Doctor P.W2 has issued Ex P8 Disability Certificate on 18.2.1996
ie., three years after the date of accident. The accident had occurred in the
year 1993 ie., 10.8.1993.
9. The learned counsel for the respondent would contend that under no
fault liability , the claimant is entitled to an award of Rs.12,000/- since the
accident had occurred in the year 1993 and he has also entitled to Rs.8,764.
62Ps on the basis of the medical bills and for pain and suffering, the claimant
is entitled to not more than Rs.5,000/- and even we can add a sum of Rs.5,000/-
towards transportation to hospital and another sum of Rs.500/- towards damages
to cloth, the award of compensation will not exceed a sum of Rs.30,000/-. But
the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would fairly concede that the
respondent has not preferred any cross appeal and he has no objection for
confirming the award.
10. Hence I hold on the point on the point that the award of compensation
made in M.C.O.P.No.95 of 1994 need not be enhanced for the reasons stated in the
memorandum of appeal in C.M.A.No.764 of 1991. The point is answered accordingly.
11. In the result, this appeal is dismissed, confirming the award passed
in M.C.O.P.No.95 of 1994 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal( III
Additional District Judge), Trichy. No costs.
sg
To
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
(III Additiional District Judge)
Madurai.