Commissioner of Police Vs. G.Subramaniam - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1168007
CourtChennai High Court
Decided OnAug-13-2013
JudgeC.S.KARNAN
AppellantCommissioner of Police
RespondentG.Subramaniam
Excerpt:
in the high court of judicature at madras dated: 13.08.2013 coram the hon'ble mr.justice c.s.karnan c.m.a.no.3759 of 2005 and c.m.p.no.18833 of 2005 the commissioner of police, department of police, commissioner's office compound, coimbatore  18.appellant vs 1.g.subramaniam 2.a.arul .respondents civil miscellaneous appeal filed under section 173 of the motor vehicle act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 29.04.2005 made in m.c.o.p.no.119 of 2003 on the file of motor accident claims tribunal authority cum chief judicial magistrate, coimbatore. for appellant : mr.s.babu (government advocate) for respondents:mr.a.r.m.arunachalam (for r1) r2  not ready notice. judgment on 11.07.2000, at about 9.00 a.m., when the claimant and one miss.chandra were proceeding on his tvs50bearing registration no.tn-37-k-3277, on the trichy main road, the government jeep bearing registration no.tn-38-g-0245, coming in the opposite direction and driven in a negligent manner, dashed against him. as a result, he had sustained injuries and hence the claim has been filed against the respondents. 2.the commissioner of police, coimbatore had filed a counter statement and resisted the claim petition. the respondent submitted that the rider of the motorcycle i.e.the claimant did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of accident. actually, the accident had been committed due to negligence of the rider of the motorcycle. in the said accident, two vehicles were involved and therefore the owner of the two- wheeler and its insurer are necessary parties, but they have not been impleaded as necessary parties. 3.on considering the averments of both parties, the tribunal had framed two issues namely (1) due to whose negligence was the accident caused?. and (2) whether the claimant is entitled to receive compensation?. if so, what is the quantum of compensation?. 4.on the side of the claimant, 4 witnesses were examined and 17 documents were marked namely f.i.r., rough sketch, motor vehicle inspector's report, medical discharge summary, driving licence, salary certificate, handicap certificate and proceedings issued by the forest department. 5.pw1 had adduced evidence that on 11.07.2000, at about 9.00 a.m., when he was riding his tvs50bearing registration no.tn-37-k-3277 along with one miss.chandra, as pillion rider, on the trichy main road, the driver of the jeep bearing registration no.tn-38-g-0245, drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed it against him. as a result, he had sustained injuries. immediately, he had undergone treatment at coimbatore medical college hospital and n.m.hospital, coimbatore as inpatient for a period of about 15 days. during the medical treatment period, a surgical operation was conducted on his right head and forearm and his hip joint was dislocated. he further stated that he was on leave from 11.07.2000 to 08.05.2001 as he was undergoing medical treatment. 6.pw2, physiotherapy doctor adduced evidence that he had examined the claimant entitled that the claimant had sustained 20% disability. pw3, ortho doctor had also spoken on the same lines of pw2 regarding nature of treatment. 7.rw1 had adduced evidence that the claimant had ridden his tvs50in a negligent manner and dashed it against the jeep. 8.on considering the evidence of the witnesses and on perusing the documents marked by the claimant, the tribunal had granted a sum of rs.1,11,708/- as compensation, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. against the said award and decree, the appeal has been filed. the highly competent counsel for the appellant has submitted that the claimant did not have a valid driving licence and as such there is a breach of policy conditions and hence the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. further, the owner and insurer of the motorcycle had not been impleaded as necessary parties in the claim petition. the tribunal had not assessed the compensation in an appropriate manner. 9.the very competent counsel for the claimant submits that the driver of the jeep had dashed it against the claimant, while he was proceeding on his motorcycle and as a result, the claimant had sustained multiple bone fracture injuries and hence he had been hospitalised as inpatient for 15 days in two different hospitals. during medical treatment period, a surgical operation was conducted and steel plate was implanted in his right hand and a nail was fixed in his right leg. after the accident, the claimant could not attend his job as a forest drafting officer for a period of about 10 months and as such he is entitled to receive an adequate compensation under the head of loss of earning during medical treatment period. further, the claimant had spent a sum of rs.42,333/- towards medical expenses. the trial court had framed necessary issues and decided the same in an appropriate manner, after recording oral evidence of the witnesses and after scrutinising the exhibit marked by the claimant. as such there is no shortcoming in the impugned award and it is found to be suitable for execution. 10.on verifying the factual position of the case and 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 negligence, liability and quantum of compensation. this court is of the further view that the f.i.r.has been levelled against the driver of the jeep and as such the tribunal had come to a correct conclusion regarding negligence and liability. regarding quantum of compensation, it is seen that the claimant had spent a sum of rs.42,333/- as medical expenses and that 2 surgical operations had been conducted on the right leg and right hand of the claimant and that he was on leave for about 10 months as his health condition did not permit him to resume his work. as such, the said award is found to be suitable for execution. 11.this court directed the appellant to deposit the entire award amount with interest. now, the claimant is at liberty to withdraw the entire compensation amount, with added interest thereon, lying in the credit of m.c.o.p.no.119 of 2003, on the file of motor accident claims tribunal authority cum chief judicial magistrate, coimbatore, after filing a memo along with a copy of this order. 12.in the result, the above appeal is dismissed. consequently, the judgment and decree passed in m.c.o.p.no.119 of 2003, on the file of motor accident claims tribunal authority cum chief judicial magistrate, coimbatore, dated 29.04.2005, is confirmed. no costs. consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 13.08.2013 vs index : yes / no internet: yes / no c.s.karnan.j vs to 1.the motor accident claims tribunal authority cum chief judicial magistrate, coimbatore. 2.the section officer, vr section, high court, madras. c.m.a.no.3759 of 2005 and c.m.p.no.18833 of 2005 13.08.2013
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 13.08.2013 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN C.M.A.No.3759 of 2005 and C.M.P.No.18833 of 2005 The Commissioner of Police, Department of Police, Commissioner's Office Compound, Coimbatore  18.Appellant vs 1.G.Subramaniam 2.A.Arul .Respondents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 29.04.2005 made in M.C.O.P.No.119 of 2003 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Authority cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore.

For Appellant : Mr.S.Babu (Government Advocate) For Respondents:Mr.A.R.M.Arunachalam (for R1) R2  Not ready notice.

JUDGMENT

On 11.07.2000, at about 9.00 a.m., when the claimant and one Miss.Chandra were proceeding on his TVS50bearing Registration No.TN-37-K-3277, on the Trichy Main road, the Government Jeep bearing Registration No.TN-38-G-0245, coming in the opposite direction and driven in a negligent manner, dashed against him.

As a result, he had sustained injuries and hence the claim has been filed against the respondents.

2.The Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore had filed a counter statement and resisted the claim petition.

The respondent submitted that the rider of the motorcycle i.e.the claimant did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of accident.

Actually, the accident had been committed due to negligence of the rider of the motorcycle.

In the said accident, two vehicles were involved and therefore the owner of the two- wheeler and its insurer are necessary parties, but they have not been impleaded as necessary parties.

3.On considering the averments of both parties, the Tribunal had framed two issues namely (1) Due to whose negligence was the accident caused?.

and (2) Whether the claimant is entitled to receive compensation?.

If so, what is the quantum of compensation?.

4.On the side of the claimant, 4 witnesses were examined and 17 documents were marked namely F.I.R., Rough sketch, Motor Vehicle Inspector's report, Medical discharge summary, Driving licence, Salary Certificate, Handicap certificate and Proceedings issued by the Forest Department.

5.PW1 had adduced evidence that on 11.07.2000, at about 9.00 a.m., when he was riding his TVS50bearing Registration No.TN-37-K-3277 along with one Miss.Chandra, as pillion rider, on the Trichy main road, the driver of the Jeep bearing Registration No.TN-38-G-0245, drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed it against him.

As a result, he had sustained injuries.

Immediately, he had undergone treatment at Coimbatore Medical College Hospital and N.M.Hospital, Coimbatore as inpatient for a period of about 15 days.

During the medical treatment period, a surgical operation was conducted on his right head and forearm and his hip joint was dislocated.

He further stated that he was on leave from 11.07.2000 to 08.05.2001 as he was undergoing medical treatment.

6.PW2, Physiotherapy Doctor adduced evidence that he had examined the claimant entitled that the claimant had sustained 20% disability.

PW3, Ortho Doctor had also spoken on the same lines of PW2 regarding nature of treatment.

7.RW1 had adduced evidence that the claimant had ridden his TVS50in a negligent manner and dashed it against the Jeep.

8.On considering the evidence of the witnesses and on perusing the documents marked by the claimant, the Tribunal had granted a sum of Rs.1,11,708/- as compensation, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.

Against the said award and decree, the appeal has been filed.

The highly competent counsel for the appellant has submitted that the claimant did not have a valid driving licence and as such there is a breach of policy conditions and hence the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation.

Further, the owner and insurer of the motorcycle had not been impleaded as necessary parties in the claim petition.

The Tribunal had not assessed the compensation in an appropriate manner.

9.The very competent counsel for the claimant submits that the driver of the Jeep had dashed it against the claimant, while he was proceeding on his motorcycle and as a result, the claimant had sustained multiple bone fracture injuries and hence he had been hospitalised as inpatient for 15 days in two different hospitals.

During medical treatment period, a surgical operation was conducted and steel plate was implanted in his right hand and a nail was fixed in his right leg.

After the accident, the claimant could not attend his job as a Forest drafting officer for a period of about 10 months and as such he is entitled to receive an adequate compensation under the head of loss of earning during medical treatment period.

Further, the claimant had spent a sum of Rs.42,333/- towards medical expenses.

The trial Court had framed necessary issues and decided the same in an appropriate manner, after recording oral evidence of the witnesses and after scrutinising the exhibit marked by the claimant.

As such there is no shortcoming in the impugned award and it is found to be suitable for execution.

10.On verifying the factual position of the case and 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 negligence, liability and quantum of compensation.

This Court is of the further view that the F.I.R.has been levelled against the driver of the Jeep and as such the Tribunal had come to a correct conclusion regarding negligence and liability.

Regarding quantum of compensation, it is seen that the claimant had spent a sum of Rs.42,333/- as medical expenses and that 2 surgical operations had been conducted on the right leg and right hand of the claimant and that he was on leave for about 10 months as his health condition did not permit him to resume his work.

As such, the said award is found to be suitable for execution.

11.This Court directed the appellant to deposit the entire award amount with interest.

Now, the claimant is at liberty to withdraw the entire compensation amount, with added interest thereon, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.119 of 2003, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Authority cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, after filing a memo along with a copy of this order.

12.In the result, the above appeal is dismissed.

Consequently, the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.119 of 2003, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Authority cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, dated 29.04.2005, is confirmed.

No costs.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

13.08.2013 vs Index : Yes / No Internet: Yes / No C.S.KARNAN.J vs To 1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Authority cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore.

2.The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.

C.M.A.No.3759 of 2005 and C.M.P.No.18833 of 2005 13.08.2013