Judgment:
(Prayer: This Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 13.07.2004 made in M.C.O.P.No.257 of 2002 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Additional Sub Court), Tenkasi.
This Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 13.07.2004 made in M.C.O.P.No.168 of 2002 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Additional Sub Court), Tenkasi.
This Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 13.07.2004 made in M.C.O.P.No.179 of 2002 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Additional Sub Court), Tenkasi.
This Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the judgment and decree dated 13.07.2004 made in M.C.O.P.No.35 of 2003 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Additional Sub Court), Tenkasi.)
Common Judgment:
1. These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals and the Civil Revision Petition have been filed against the judgment and decree dated 13.07.2004 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Additional Sub-Court), Tenkasi.
2. Since all the appeals and the civil revision petition have been preferred against the common judgment dated 13.07.2004, they are disposed of by this common judgment.
3. Heard Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.D.Thirumahilmaran, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and perused the materials available on record.
4. The facts in nutshell are as follows; on 25.02.2001, the claimants were travelling in a two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN67W 3598 on Tenkasi to Tirunelveli Main Road and at that time, an Ambassador car bearing Registration No.TN27-1299, came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the two wheeler. In the impact, claimants sustained fracture and grievous injuries. They filed claim petition alleging that the driver of the Ambassador car was responsible for the accident.
5. The appellant, Insurance Company resisted the claim petitions disputing the manner of the accident, age, income and avocation of the claimants. It is further stated that the Insurance Company of the two wheeler is a proper and necessary party and that the claim was an excessive.
6. Before the Tribunal, the claimants have examined three witnesses and marked Exs.P.1 to P.19. On the side of the appellant, no witness was examined and no document was marked.
7. P.W.1/Dabendran and P.W.2/Sugirthavalli are husband and wife. P.W.1 and P.W.2 have given evidence stating that they were proceeding in a two wheeler, but the driver of the Ambassador car came in a rash and negligent manner rammed the two wheeler. Ex.P.1 is the First Information Report and Ex.P.4 is the Charge Sheet. Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.4 would reveal that a criminal case was registered against the driver of the Ambassador Car and he was also charge sheeted before the criminal Court. The Tribunal relying upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.4, held that the driver of the Ambassador car was responsible for the accident.
8. In M.C.O.P.No.168 of 2002, P.W.1, the claimant has stated that in the accident, his left leg and right hand got fractured and sustained grievous injuries in other parts of the body. P.W.3/Dr.Vethamoorthy has given evidence stating that P.W.1 suffered 80% permanent disability. Ex.P.13 is the disability certificate. P.W.3 has further deposed that he has perused the case-sheet and also seen the x-rays and found that there was fracture on the left leg and right hand and there was shortening of 2 inches in the left leg and the movement of the right hand is restricted.
9. P.W.1 was working as Electrician. Ex.P.16 is the licence issued by the Government. Ex.P.17 the salary slip which shows that he was drawing 3,060/- per month. However, the Tribunal has taken the income of P.W.1 as Rs.900/- and by applying '13' multiplier, awarded Rs.1,40,400/- and deducted 20% and awarded Rs.1,12,320/- for 80% disability. Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.9 are the medical bills, which show that the claimant spent Rs.39,000/- towards medical expenses. The Tribunal awarded Rs.5,000/- towards pain and sufferings and Rs.5,000/- towards extra-nourishment. Totally, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,61,320/- together with interest at 9% p.a. In my considered view, the award of the Tribunal is fair just and reasonable.
10. In M.C.O.P.No.179 of 2004, P.W.2 is the claimant, she has given evidence stating that after the accident, she was taking treatment at Tirunelveli Government Hospital as inpatient from 25.02.2001 to 09.03.2001. Ex.P.12 is the Accident Register. P.W.3/Dr.Vethamoorthy has deposed that P.W.2 has sustained 60% permanent disability. Based on the evidence, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/- towards permanent disability and Rs.1,500/- towards pain and sufferings and Rs.1,500/- towards extra-nourishment. Totally, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.23,000/-. The award is just and fair.
11. The claimant in M.C.O.P.No.257 of 2002, was a minor, aged about 13 years at the time of accident. Ex.P.10/Accident Register would show that his left leg below thigh was amputated and he also sustained injuries on the head and other parts of the body. P.W.2-Dr.Vethamoorthy has issued Ex.P.15/Disability Certificate stating that he suffered 90% permanent disability. The Tribunal has fixed notional income at Rs.18,000/- p.a., by applying '15' multiplier, awarded Rs.2,70,000/- and for 90% disability awarded Rs.2,43,000/- towards loss of income and Rs.5,000/- towards pain and sufferings and Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment. Totally, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,53,000/-. In my considered view, the award of the Tribunal is just, fair and reasonable.
12. The claimant in M.C.O.P.No.35 of 2003 was a minor, aged about 11 years at the time of accident. The claimants viz., Vincent Raj took treatment as in-patient in Tirunelveli Government Hospital from 25.02.2001 to 01.03.2001. Since he suffered simple injuries, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards injuries and Rs.1,500/- towards pain and sufferings and Rs.1,500/- towards extra nourishment. Totally, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.8,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. In my considered view, the award of the Tribunal is just, fair and reasonable. The award of the Tribunal does not warrant interference of this Court.
13. In fine, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals and Civil Revision Petitions stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected C.M.Ps are also closed.
14. It is represented that the appellant-Insurance Company has already deposited the entire award amount and the claimants 3 and 4 have attained majority. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, the major claimants are permitted to withdraw their share in the award amount, without filing any permission petition before the Tribunal.