V.M. Kanniappa Mudaliar Vs. Pattukottai Alagiri Transport Corporation Limited - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/826917
SubjectInsurance;Motor Vehicles
CourtChennai High Court
Decided OnApr-09-1999
JudgeM. Karpagavinayagam, J.
Reported in2(2000)ACC54
AppellantV.M. Kanniappa Mudaliar
RespondentPattukottai Alagiri Transport Corporation Limited
Excerpt:
- m. karpagavinayagam, j.1. kanniappa mudaliar, appellant herein, has filed this appeal, challenging the dismissal of the petition claiming an award of compensation of rs. 85,000/-.2. on 28.5.1988, the appellant was travelling in pattukottai alagiri transport bus bearing registration no. tml 3161 from ammaiyar kuppam. the bus was driven in a rash and negligent manner. due to this, the bus ran without control and dashed against a neem tree on the right side of the road, as a result of which the appellant and other passengers got grievous injuries. kanniappa mudaliar, the appellant filed a claim petition on 26.6.1988, claiming compensation of rs. 85,000/- on various heads.3. the tribunal, on recording the evidence of p.ws. 1 and 2 on the side of the claimant and r.w. 1 on the side of the respondent-corporation, concluded that the appellant was not entitled to any compensation on the ground that the injuries sustained by the claimant were not established, which were said to have been sustained during the course of accident on 28.5.1988.4. mr. balachandran, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the documents like exs. a9 and a14 would clearly prove that the appellant was one of the injured in the accident which had taken place due to the negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to the respondent-corporation and that there are documents which would prove that the claimant/appellant sustained grievous injuries due to which he suffered permanent disability on the hands and other parts of the body to the extent of 50%.5. on the other hand, mr. muniratnam, learned counsel for the respondent, in support of the findings of the tribunal, would submit that the materials available on record are not sufficient to hold that he was one of the injured in the accident in question.6. i have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties.7. in the instant case, the claimant examined himself as p.w. 1 and the doctor, who certified that the claimant had suffered permanent disability to the extent of 50%, was examined as p.w. 2. on going through the evidence of p.w. 2, it is seen that he had also given treatment for the injuries sustained by the claimant. therefore, there is no difficulty in concluding that the claimant sustained injuries for which he took treatment, incurring heavy medical expenditure and due to which he suffered a permanent disability to the extent of 50% as opined by the doctor p.w. 2.8. but, the question is whether the appellant sustained injuries in the accident which took place on 28.5.1988 due to the negligent driving of the driver of the bus owned by the respondent-corporation.9. to prove this aspect, we have to consider the evidence of p.w. 1. according to him, immediately after the accident, he was admitted in the general hospital, tiruthani to take treatment. however, it must be noticed that exs. a9 and a14 filed by the claimant would reveal that he was one of the injured in the accident and in the case charge-sheeted by the police with reference to the said accident under sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(a), i.p.c., the claimant was also summoned as an injured witness.10. ex. a9 is the summon issued by the magistrate's court, which was filed by the claimant as p.w. 1 before the tribunal. ex. p14 charge-sheet would also clearly show that the claimant was one of the injured witnesses.11. though it is argued by mr. muniratnam, learned counsel for the respondent-corporation that identity of the person as mentioned in the chargesheet and summons have not been established before the tribunal, in my view, that submission does not merit acceptance, because all these documents relating to the criminal case were filed by the claimant before the tribunal.12. therefore, in my opinion, the appellant herein has established that he was one of the injured in the accident and suffered a permanent disability due to the negligent driving of the bus belonging to the respondent, who is liable to pay the compensation.13. coming to the quantum, the claim made by the claimant before the tribunal is rs. 85,000/-. he produced medical bills for a sum of rs. 4,300/- which was spent towards medical expenses. in the evidence itself, he stated that total expenditure incurred by him towards treatment is rs. 10,000/-.14. the claimant is a weaver and is doing business by having powerlooms. due to the permanent disability, he is not able to effectively involve in the business. it is seen from the exhibits that he was taking treatment from 30.5.1988 till 26.6.1988, during which period, he had undergone two operations.15. in the facts and circumstances of the case, i feel that compensation could be paid on the following heads:1. for pain and suffering: rs. 35,000.002. for extra nourishment: rs. 5,000.003. for medical expenses: rs. 10,000.00__________________total rs. 50,000.00__________________16. in view of the above, the claimant is entitled to rs. 50,000/- as compensation with interest @'12% per annum from the date of application till the date of payment. the appeal is allowed. consequently, c.m.p. no. 5635 of 1992 is closed. no costs.
Judgment:

M. Karpagavinayagam, J.

1. Kanniappa Mudaliar, appellant herein, has filed this appeal, challenging the dismissal of the petition claiming an award of compensation of Rs. 85,000/-.

2. On 28.5.1988, the appellant was travelling in Pattukottai Alagiri Transport bus bearing Registration No. TML 3161 from Ammaiyar Kuppam. The bus was driven in a rash and negligent manner. Due to this, the bus ran without control and dashed against a neem tree on the right side of the road, as a result of which the appellant and other passengers got grievous injuries. Kanniappa Mudaliar, the appellant filed a claim petition on 26.6.1988, claiming compensation of Rs. 85,000/- on various heads.

3. The Tribunal, on recording the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 on the side of the claimant and R.W. 1 on the side of the respondent-Corporation, concluded that the appellant was not entitled to any compensation on the ground that the injuries sustained by the claimant were not established, which were said to have been sustained during the course of accident on 28.5.1988.

4. Mr. Balachandran, learned Counsel for the appellant would contend that the documents like Exs. A9 and A14 would clearly prove that the appellant was one of the injured in the accident which had taken place due to the negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to the respondent-Corporation and that there are documents which would prove that the claimant/appellant sustained grievous injuries due to which he suffered permanent disability on the hands and other parts of the body to the extent of 50%.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Muniratnam, learned Counsel for the respondent, in support of the findings of the Tribunal, would submit that the materials available on record are not sufficient to hold that he was one of the injured in the accident in question.

6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for both the parties.

7. In the instant case, the claimant examined himself as P.W. 1 and the Doctor, who certified that the claimant had suffered permanent disability to the extent of 50%, was examined as P.W. 2. On going through the evidence of P.W. 2, it is seen that he had also given treatment for the injuries sustained by the claimant. Therefore, there is no difficulty in concluding that the claimant sustained injuries for which he took treatment, incurring heavy medical expenditure and due to which he suffered a permanent disability to the extent of 50% as opined by the Doctor P.W. 2.

8. But, the question is whether the appellant sustained injuries in the accident which took place on 28.5.1988 due to the negligent driving of the driver of the bus owned by the respondent-Corporation.

9. To prove this aspect, we have to consider the evidence of P.W. 1. According to him, immediately after the accident, he was admitted in the General Hospital, Tiruthani to take treatment. However, it must be noticed that Exs. A9 and A14 filed by the claimant would reveal that he was one of the injured in the accident and in the case charge-sheeted by the police with reference to the said accident under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(A), I.P.C., the claimant was also summoned as an injured witness.

10. Ex. A9 is the summon issued by the Magistrate's Court, which was filed by the claimant as P.W. 1 before the Tribunal. Ex. P14 charge-sheet would also clearly show that the claimant was one of the injured witnesses.

11. Though it is argued by Mr. Muniratnam, learned Counsel for the respondent-Corporation that identity of the person as mentioned in the chargesheet and summons have not been established before the Tribunal, in my view, that submission does not merit acceptance, because all these documents relating to the criminal case were filed by the claimant before the Tribunal.

12. Therefore, in my opinion, the appellant herein has established that he was one of the injured in the accident and suffered a permanent disability due to the negligent driving of the bus belonging to the respondent, who is liable to pay the compensation.

13. Coming to the quantum, the claim made by the claimant before the Tribunal is Rs. 85,000/-. He produced medical bills for a sum of Rs. 4,300/- which was spent towards medical expenses. In the evidence itself, he stated that total expenditure incurred by him towards treatment is Rs. 10,000/-.

14. The claimant is a weaver and is doing business by having Powerlooms. Due to the permanent disability, he is not able to effectively involve in the business. It is seen from the exhibits that he was taking treatment from 30.5.1988 till 26.6.1988, during which period, he had undergone two operations.

15. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that compensation could be paid on the following heads:

1. For pain and suffering: Rs. 35,000.002. For extra nourishment: Rs. 5,000.003. For medical expenses: Rs. 10,000.00__________________Total Rs. 50,000.00__________________

16. In view of the above, the claimant is entitled to Rs. 50,000/- as compensation with interest @'12% per annum from the date of application till the date of payment. The appeal is allowed. Consequently, C.M.P. No. 5635 of 1992 is closed. No costs.