This civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the appellant/second respondent against the decree and judgment passed in MCOP NO.94 of 2001 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Sub Court, Cheyyar dated 31.03.2004, awarding a compensation of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees eighty thousand only) together with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the claim petition till date of payment of compensation.
2. Aggrieved by the decree and judgment, the appellant/second respondent, the National Insurance Company Limited has filed the appeal before this Court.
3. The History of the case is as follows;-
On 18.04.1999, at about 01.30 a.m. in the wee hours, the vehicle Tata Sumo bearing registration No.TN-25-Y-0347 was driven by its driver Palani and the petitioner travelled in the said car. When the said car was nearing an area between Akkur joint road and Mangal village, an iron rod broke in the car and so the vehicle had gone out of control. The driver of the vehicle, Palani, asked the petitioner to jump from the car. The petitioner jumped from the car and following him, the driver also jumped from the car. Then the car proceeded on the right side and fell into a pit. The petitioner and the driver, Palani sustained injuries and they reached Government Hospital, Vandavasi through a lorry. The petitioner sustained injuries on right leg knee, on right leg palm, spinal cord, lower jaw right side and left leg toe.
Regarding the said occurrence, the claimant/petitioner had lodged a complaint with Thusi Police Station. The said complaint was registered in Cr.No.165 of 1999 on an alleged offence under
Sections 279 and
337 of I.P.C. The petitioner is a driver and his income is Rs.5,000/- per month. Due to this accident, he did not go to his job. As such, he has lost an income of Rs.30,000/-. Further, the petitioner has spent Rs.20,000/- on medical expenses. Further, the petitioner claims compensation for continuing pain and suffering and loss of income, in total Rs.1,50,000/- in his claim petition. The claim petition has been filed against the first respondent, one Vakulamala, who is the owner of the vehicle and the second respondent, National Insurance Company Limited, who is the insurer of the vehicle. As such, both the respondents are liable to pay compensation to the claimant.
4. The second respondent/National Insurance Company Limited, Vellore has filed counter statement and resisted the claim of the petitioner. The second respondent has alleged in their counter statement that the vehicle was not insured with them. Further, the respondent opposed the age and income of the petitioner. Without supporting documents, the petitioner has claimed compensation. The rash and negligent driving of the petitioner is the cause of the accident and further the petitioner has suffered only minor injuries. The petitioner has created false documents regarding age and income to claim compensation against the insurance company. The second respondent, pointed out that the petitioner can claim compensation against the owner of the Vehicle under
Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
5. The driver of the vehicle, Palani, has also filed claim petition in MCOP No.93 of 2001 against the same respondents for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal passed a common order in both claim cases.
6. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed two issues namely,
1) Whether the vehicle involved in the said accident belongs to the first respondent?
2) If the respondents are liable to pay compensation to the claimant and if so, what is the quantum of compensation?
7. On the side of claimants, common evidence was recorded by the Tribunal. The claimant PW1, one Palani, who is the claim petitioner in MCOP No.93 of 2001 was examined. PW2, Mubarak ali, the claimant in MCOP NO.94 of 2001 was examined. On the side of the claimant/petitioner, five documents were marked namely,
1) first information report marked as Ex.P1; 2)wound certificate of Palani, driver as Ex.P2; 3) insurance policy marked as Ex.P3; 4) driving licence marked as Ex.P4 and 4) wound certificate of Mubarak ali/petitioner marked as Ex.P5. On the side of the respondent, one Ulaganathan was examined. Through him Ex.R1 was marked i.e. insurance policy.
8. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has considered the oral and documentary evidence of claimants as well as respondents, the Ex.P1, first information report, Ex.P2, wound certificate and Ex.P3, insurance policy insured with the second respondent and Ex.P4, driving licence and Ex.P5 wound certificate of the petitioner and had then come to a conclusion that the vehicle was driven by the driver with a valid driving licence. The iron rod, which was broken in the vehicle, was the reason for the car going out of control. So, to avoid major accident, the driver, Palani and the petitioner Mubarak ali had jumped from the vehicle. The accident had happened only due to the breaking of the iron rod, suddenly, in the vehicle. So, as the vehicle having been insured with the second respondent, the second respondent is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner, for a sum of Rs.80,000/- to the claimant, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of claim till date of payment of compensation. So, Rs.80,000/- was awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to the petitioner as one lump sum payment.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and award granted by the Tribunal, this Court is of the view that the award of Rs.80,000/- granted as lumpsum is an arbitrary one. In the assessment of compensation, the learned Tribunal has not given the exact amount offered as compensation under various heads. However, this Court accepts the finding of the Tribunal's decision that the accident had happened only due to the iron rod of the vehicle getting broken. So, this Court grants the compensation as under;-
1) Loss of income for six months at the rate of Rs.5000 per month = 5000 X 6 = Rs.30,000/-
This Court grants the award of Rs.18,000/- under this head.
2. The claimant has claimed Rs.20,000/- towards transportation charges.
This Court grants Rs.5,000/- under this head.
3. For pain and suffering Rs.1,00,000/- has been claimed by the petitioner.
This Court grants Rs.45,000/- towards pain and suffering.
4. For Extra nourishment, this Court grants Rs.2,000/-
5. For medical expenses, this Court grants Rs.10,000/-.
In total, a sum of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees eighty thousand only) is granted by this Court. As such, the award given by the Tribunal and this Court is the same and there is no variance in the award granted. The only difference is that the award has been given under various heads. The said appeal came before this Court on 22.12.2005. The Court permitted the claimant to withdraw 30,000/- of the deposited amount. The balance amount was deposited in the State Bank of India, which is proximate to the Court. Now, this Court permits the claimants to receive the balance compensation amount lying to the credit of MCOP No.94 of 2001 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, The Subordinate Judge, Cheyyar by filing necessary payment out application in accordance with law. Resultingly, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.
JIKR To The Subordinate Judge, The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cheyyar