Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 05.08.2013 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN C.M.A.No.611 of 2005 1.T.Munireddy 2.National Insurance Company Limited, Hosur 635 109.Appellants vs 1.Amizhithan 2.Chikkana 3.M.Bojrajverma 4.M.Ramamoorthy 5.United India Insurance Company Limited, Krishnagiri.
(respondents 2 to 5 given up as unnecessary in CMA) .Respondents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated 03.12.1999 made in M.C.O.P.No.282 of 1996 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Hosur.
For Appellant : Mr.N.Vijayaraghavan For Respondent :Mr.R.Malaichamy for R1 (R2 to R5 given up) JUDGMENT
On 27.02.1992, when the claimant was proceeding in a bus bearing registration No.TAD-4444, on the Bangalore high road at Hosur, the bus collided with a truck bearing registration No.MED-7433.
As a result, the petitioner had sustained grievious injuries.
Hence, the claim had been levelled against the owners and insurers of both the vehicles.
2.The respondent / National Insurance Company had filed a counter statement and resisted the claim petition.
The respondent submits that the accident had not been committed by the driver of the bus.
Further, the respondent denied the averments in the claim regarding age, income and occupation of the claimant and disability.
3.The 1st and 2nd respondent had filed a counter statement and admitted the accident.
However, they denied the averments in claim regarding nature of injuries, mode of treatment, medical expenses and disability.
The respondent submits that the accident had been committed by the driver of the bus.
4.The 6th respondent/United India Insurance Company had filed a counter statement and resisted the claim petition.
The respondent submits that the 1st respondent had driven the lorry in a negligent manner and dashed against the bus.
Further, the F.I.R had been registered against the 1st respondent.
The averments in claim regarding age, income, medical treatment and disability of the claimant was not admitted.
5.On recording the averments of all parties, the Tribunal had framed two issues namely: (1)Whether the accident had been committed by the negligence of the driver of the lorry or by the negligence of driver of bus; (2)Whether the claimant is entitled to get compensation?.
If so what is the quantum?.On the side of the claimant, three witnesses were examined and twenty documents were marked namely: F.I.R, Criminal Court Judgment; Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report; Salary certificate of claimant, educational qualification of claimant; driving licence of the 1st respondent and Insurance policy and medical records.
On the side of the respondents, three witnesses were examined and insurance policy of the lorry and driving licence was marked.
6.PW.1, had adduced evidence that on 27.02.1992, at about 07.00 a.m., when he was travelling in a bus bearing registration No.TAD-4444 on the Hosur main road, the lorry bearing registration No.MFD-7433 had been driven by its driver, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the rear side of the bus and as a result, he had sustained injuries.
He deposed that his right arm had been totally crushed.
7.RW.1, had adduced evidence that when the bus was proceeding on the left of the road at a moderate speed the lorry had come at a high speed and dashed against the bus.
8.On considering the evidence of witnesses, the Tribunal had fastened 65% negligence on the side of the driver of the lorry and 25% on the side of the driver of the bus and 10% on the side of the claimant.
9.PW.1, further stated that he had undergone treatment at S.T.Johns hospital, Bangalore as an inpatient and during medical treatment period, his right hand joint had been removed.
Further a skin grafting was conducted on his right hand, after removing skin from left thigh.
PW.2, doctor had spoken on the same line of PW.1 regarding mode of treatment and nature of injuries.
PW.3, had certified that the claimant had sustained 90% disability.
10.On considering the evidence of the witnesses and on perusing the documents marked by the claimant, the Tribunal had granted a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- as compensation and directed the National Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.5,20,000/- and also directed the United India Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
11.Against the said award, the National Insurance Company had filed the above appeal.
The highly competent counsel Mr.Vijayaraghavan, submits that in the said accident, two vehicles had been involved and as such the negligence has to be attributed equally and as such the Tribunal erred in fastening 65% negligence on the driver of the lorry.
Further the Doctor had assessed the disability at 90% which is on the higher side.
The Tribunal had awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- under each of the heads of pain and suffering, disability, loss of amenities, disfiguration and effect on marital life, which is not proper in the instant case.
12.The very competent counsel for the claimant submits that the claimant age was 24 years and he was an Engineer.
In the said accident, his right hand had been totally damaged and his right hand joint had been cut off and a skin grafting operation was conducted on his right hand after removing skin from the right thigh of the claimant.
After the accident, the marital prospects of claimant has been affected.
The Doctor had assessed the disability at 90%, since the claimants right hand had been totally disabled.
Hence, the learned counsel entreats the Court to dismiss the above appeal.
13.On verifying the facts and present situation of the case and on arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and on perusing the impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the conclusions arrived at regarding apportionment of negligence, liability and quantum of compensation.
The negligence issue had been decided on the basis of mode of accident.
Besides, the quantum of compensation is not on the higher side.
Further the claimants right hand had been totally affected as per the evidence of PW.1 and doctor.
It is also seen that the claimants age is only 24 and therefore the quantum of compensation is not on the higher side and hence the award is confirmed.
The learned counsel for the Insurance Company informed this Court that the entire compensation has been deposited, as per the trial Court's order.
14.Now, the claimants is at liberty to withdraw the entire compensation, with added interest thereon, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.282 of 1996, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Hosur, after filing a memo along with a copy of this order.
11.In the result, the above appeal is dismissed.
Consequently, the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.282 of 1996, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Hosur, dated 03.12.1999, is confirmed.
No costs.
05.08.2013 ub Index : Yes / No Internet: Yes / No To 1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / Subordinate Court, Hosur.
2.The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.
C.S.KARNAN.J.ub C.M.A.No.611 of 2005 05.08.2013