This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the Judgment and decree, dated 28.11.2005, made in M.C.O.P.No.1617 of 2000, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III Additional Subordinate Judge), Madurai.
2. The case of the claimant is as follows:-
It is a case of injury, due to the accident, which took place on 06.07.1999, at about 05.00 pm, when the first respondent / claimant was riding as a pillion rider of one Gunasekaran's Bajaj M-80 bearing Registration No.TN 59 H / 2645. He was riding the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner in an uncontrollable speed in Kuruvikaran Salai main road. While first respondent / claimant's motor cycle approaching Aravind Eye Hospital a bull suddenly crossed the road, due to the over speed, the driver of the motorcycle, drove the vehicle in such a way to avoid the hitting of bull. As a result of which, the vehicle fell down and the pillion rider / claimant viz., Chitravel also sustained severe head injuries. Immediately, the claimant was taken to Meenakshi Mission Hospital, Madurai for treatment. Due to impact of the accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries viz., Hemiplegia, severe head injuries in right occipital region and Hemorrhage in the brain and also in the left side of pons and right ear hearing impaired right ear lobe crushed and nerve defect in the right eye, both knee bone fracture, injury on the right dorsum of hand and other injuries all over the body. Due to the permanent disability, the petitioner is not in a capacity to do his avocation resulting in total loss of earning capacity and he is not able to walk fast, squat, stand as before. Further, the petitioner is aged about 41 years and he is doing milk vending business and earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month. Hence, the petitioner has filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.1617 of 2000, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III Additional Subordinate Judge), Madurai, seeking compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-.
3.The appellant / Insurance Company filed a counter affidavit before the Tribunal and submitted that as per the averment in the petition, the accident had occurred on 06.07.1999 and the claimant was admitted in the Meenakshi Mission Hospital, Madurai for taking treatment nearly for 33 days as inpatient and discharged on 09.08.1999, but, the First Information Report was given only on 24.09.1999 i.e nearly 78 days after the accident and after discharge from the hospital. It is further stated that as per 161(3) statement given by one Gurusamy, who is none other than the person who gave the First Information Report in the case, the claimant has got personal injuries in the quarrel among the relatives and further one Pandi, Auto driver has stated that in order to recover the expenses meted out in the hospital, they lodged a complaint. Further, the claimant himself admitted that on the date of accident, he consumed alcohol and he was riding in the motor cycle and he did not know, how, he has sustained injuries. As per the enquiry report submitted by Sub-Inspector of Police, Traffic IV, ?there is no occurrence was done on 06.07.1999 as per FIR?. Since the injuries sustained by the claimant is not due to road accident, he is not entitled to claim Rs.25,000/- under no fault liability and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
4.The second respondent / first respondent remained ex-parte before the Tribunal.
5.Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimant, three witnesses viz., P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined and eight documents viz., Exs.P.1 to P.8 were marked and on the side of the respondents, three witnesses viz., RW.1 to RW.3 were examined and seven documents viz., Ex.R1 to R7, were marked.
6.The Tribunal, after considering the pleadings, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments of the learned counsel appearing on either side and also appreciating the evidence on record, awarded a sum of Rs.2,23,000/- as compensation.
7.Against which, the appellant / Insurance Company has filed the present appeal.
8.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant / Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal had failed to note that the First Information Report was belatedly given to the police after a period of 78 days, as an after-thought, just to get compensation from the appellant and the Tribunal failed to note that no proper explanation was given by the claimant for the delay in preferring the complaint to the police. Further, the Tribunal failed to consider the statements given by the de- facto complainant Mr. Gurusamy, one Mr. Pandi and the claimant himself. From their statements, it is evidenced that no accident has taken place and the claimant has sustained personal injuries in a quarrel among the relatives with regard to money dealing. Further, the Tribunal failed to note that the police after conducting investigation, has referred the case stating that no occurrence had occurred on 06.07.1999, as per the First Information Report. He further contended that the Tribunal failed to note that the Tribunal has awarded the amount excessively in various heads and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
10.The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent /claimant would submit that based on the available oral and documentary evidences, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion and arrived at a correct compensation, under various heads and hence, it does not require any interference at the hands of this Court.
11. From the evidence of PW.2 ? Dr. Aathiappan, it is seen that the first respondent / claimant sustained multiple grievous injuries all over the body and due to the head injury, he lost his hearing and speech and hence, as per Ex.P3-medical bills, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.75,000/- towards medical expenses and cost of attendant, which in the considered opinion of this Court, is reasonable. Further, it is seen that the first respondent / claimant was not able to do the work, as he did earlier, the Tribunal has assessed the disability at 40%, as per Exs.P.5, Ex.P7 and Ex.P8 ? Disability certificate and Case History and Case Sheet issued by the Doctor. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards permanent disability, which in the considered opinion of this Court is also reasonable and considering the nature of injuries sustained by the first respondent / claimant, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs.3,000/- towards transportation; Rs.20,000/- towards loss of amenities and enjoyment; Rs.15,000/- towards Extra nourishment and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of income during the treatment period. In total, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,23,000/- as compensation to the first respondent / claimant, which, in the considered opinion of this Court is reasonable and the same is confirmed.
12.In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no error in the finding of the Tribunal and the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation. Hence, there is no infirmity or irregularity in the award passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal deserves to be dismissed.
13.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the Judgment and Decree made in M.C.O.P.No.1617 of 2000, dated 28.11.2005 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III Additional Subordinate Judge), Madurai, is hereby confirmed. The appellant / Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire award amount, as directed by the Tribunal, with accrued interests and costs, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not already deposited and on such deposit being made, the first respondent / claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire award amount with accrued interests and costs without filing any formal petition before the Tribunal. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
To
1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III Additional Subordinate Judge), Madurai.
2. The Record Keeper, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
.