BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 19/04/2006
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN
C.M.A. (MD)No.529 of 2006
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.2863 of 2006
The Branch Manager
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited
1858, South Main Road,
Thanjavur ... Appellant
Vs
1. Shanmugasundaram
2. The Secretary
Manickam Science and Arts College
257, Tiruchy Road,
Thanjavur. ... Respondents
Prayer
Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the
Judgment and decree dated 22.02.2005 in M.C.O.P.No.139 of 2002 on the file of
the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,(Subordinate Judge) Pudukottai.
!For Appellant ... Mr.C.Ramachandran.
^
:JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, who would contend
that P.W.2 the Doctor, who had given the disability certificate, had examined
the injured/claimant on 2.1.2004 ie., three years after the date of the
accident. But P.W.2 the Doctor who had examined the injured on the date of the
accident has not mentioned about any fracture in the knee bone of the claimant.
But the Doctor R.W.1, who had deposed before the Tribunal, has categorically
stated that there was an injury seen on the right knee of the injured and also
an incised wound near the right ankle of the injured and that he was referred to
Ward No.5 for surgery. P.W.2 who had issued the disability certificate has
deposed to the effect that there was a sutured heeled wound found on the right
knee of the injured. So, it cannot be said that there was no fracture sustained
by the claimant in the accident.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the
vehicle bearing Registration No. TN-55A-9502 was not a bus which involved in
the accident. But there is no contra evidence let in by the appellant before
the Tribunal to show that the vehicle bearing Registration No. TN-55-A-9502 was
not a bus which involved in the accident. On the other hand, the claimant had
produced Ex P5 Judgment copy of the Criminal case wherein the driver of the bus
bearing Registration No.TN-55-A-9502 had admitted the guilt and paid a fine.
The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would rely on a decision
reported in N.Sathidevi and others-vs-Giridharan and another(2004(2)TNMAC 101
and contend that the Judgement in a criminal case has no bearing in a civil
case. Nodoubt that a finding in a criminal case has no bearing in a civil case,
but in the particular circumstances of this case, wherein the appellant disputes
the vehicle which involved in the accident,the admission of the driver of the
vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-55-A-9502 admitting the guilt before the
Criminal Court will definitely have the bearing. The learned counsel appearing
for the appellant has no dispute with regard to the quantum of the compensation
awarded by the learned Tribunal.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the award of
interest is rather high as per the latest Judgment of the Apex Court wherein
they have awarded 7.5% interest. But in this case, the accident had occurred in
the year 2001. During that period the prevailing rate of interest of the Reserve
Bank of India was only 9% and the learned Tribunal has also awarded only 9%
interest for the award of compensation. Under such circumstances, I do not find
any reason to admit this appeal since there is no substantial question of law or
fact involved. Hence, this appeal is dismissed at the admission stage itself.
Consequently, connected C.M.P.No.2863 of 2006 is also dismissed.
sg
To
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
(Subordinate Judge)
Pudukottai.