Madras High Court
National Insurance Company Limited vs P.Sekar on 10 June, 2014
Author: S.Manikumar
Bench: S.Manikumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 10.06.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR C.M.A.No.1740 of 2014 and M.P.No.1of 2014 National Insurance Company Limited, No.751, III Floor, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. ... Appellant vs. 1.P.Sekar 2.G.Kumaresan ... Respondents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree, dated 18.02.2014 made in M.C.O.P.No.317 of 2002 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Judge), Thiruvallur. For Appellant : Mr.D.Bhaskaran J U D G M E N T
In the accident, which occurred on 24.09.2001, the respondent, as a pillion rider of the motor cycle, sustained a fracture at C6 and C7 Vertebre. According to him, the injury was posterior arch closed, moderate head injury, 2cms laceration over Glabella, 8 cms laceration over the posterior frontal region, 5 cms laceration in the posterior parital region injury to the face and nose and other injuries. A case in Crime No.184 of 2001 under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC has been registered against the driver of the lorry, bearing Registration No.TN-23U-7669, involved in the accident and insured with National Insurance Company Limited, Chennai, the appellant herein. He claimed compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. The Insurance Company has disputed negligence attributed against the driver of the vehicle insured with them.
2.Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that on 24.09.2001, about 15.00 hours, when the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider in a Suzuki motor cycle, on Chittoor to Chennai High Road, near Thiruvalam, the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-23U-7669, was operated at a moderate speed. The motor cycle, driven in a rash and negligent manner, suddenly crossed the road, without observing the traffic rules and dashed against the lorry. According to the Insurance Company, the accident occurred in the abovesaid manner. Hence, they disputed the liability to pay compensation. Without prejudice to the above, they have disputed the age, income, avocation, nature of injuries and the quantum of compensation claimed under various heads.
3.Before the Claims Tribunal, the injured examined himself as PW1 and reiterated the manner of accident. PW2 is the Doctor, who assessed the extent of disability. On the side of the respondents/claimants, Ex.P.1-First Information Report, Ex.P.2-Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report, Ex.P.3-Charge Sheet, Ex.P.4-Copy of Judgment in STC No.861 of 2002, Ex.P.5-Wound Certificate, Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.7-Medical Bills, Ex.P.8-Discharge Summary, Ex.P.9-Disability Certificate and Ex.P.10-X-ray have been marked. No oral or documentary evidence has been adduced on the side of the Insurance Company.
4.On evaluation of pleadings and evidence, the Tribunal found that the driver of the lorry has been charge sheeted and that he himself has admitted the guilt. To rebut the manner of accident, the driver of the lorry has not been examined. Finding that the oral testimony of the respondent/claimant was duly corroborated by Ex.P.1 FIR, Ex.P.3-Charge Sheet, Ex.P.4-Copy of Judgment in STC No.861 of 2002 and in the absence of any rebuttal evidence, the Tribunal held that the driver of the lorry was negligent, in causing the accident. Finding of facts cannot be said to be perverse.
5.On the quantum of compensation, it is the case of the respondent that in the accident, he sustained fractures in the neck, nose and other injuries. Immediately, he was provided first aid in Vellore Government Hospital and thereafter, referred to CMC Hospital, Vellore, for better treatment. He was hospitalised for four days. To prove the nature of injuries, the respondent/claimant has marked Ex.P.5-Wound Certificate and Ex.P.6-Medical Bills. PW2-Doctor, who clinically examined the respondent, has also endorsed the said submission. PW2-Doctor has further added that the fracture bones were not malunited. On physical examination, there was a stiffness in the muscle and that the respondent would found it difficult to turn his neck and hand. Upon perusal of the medical records, the Tribunal has recorded that the respondent has sustained fracture of C6 and C7 vertebre and he was hospitalised between 24.09.2001 and 27.09.2001. Ex.P.10-X-ray has been taken. CT scan has also been taken. At the time of accident, the respondent was aged 30 years and stated to be a driver, considering the discomfort experienced based on the clinical observation, PW2-Doctor has assessed the extent of disablement as 50%. Considering the nature of injuries and the extent of disablement, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,71,752/- as compensation, with interest @9% per annum, from the date of claim, till the date of realisation, as hereunder:
Loss of earning power -Rs.33,500/-
Pain and suffering -Rs.25,000/-
Damage to clothes -Rs. 500/- Transportation -Rs. 2,500/- Disability compensation -Rs.50,000/- loss of earning capacity as driver -Rs.50,000/- Nutrition -Rs. 2,500/- Medical expenses under Ex.P7-Rs. 7,752/- ---------------- Total -Rs.1,71,752/- -----------------
6.Though Mr.D.Bhaskaran, learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company contended that the quantum of compensation is on the higher side, considering the fact that the respondent has suffered a fracture of C6 and C7 Vertebre and the consequential disability, assessed by PW2-Doctor, this Court is of the view that the compensation awarded cannot be said to be grossly excessive. The injured was at the time of accident 30 years. Fracture of C6 and C7 Vertebre would cause nagging pain and suffering. There is no infirmity in the award. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.
Consequent to the dismissal of the appeal, the appellant Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award amount, with proportionate accrued interest and costs, less the statutory deposit, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.317 of 2002 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Judge), Thiruvallur, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not deposited earlier. On such deposit, the respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount by making necessary application.
10.06.2014 Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes/No mps To The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Judge), Thiruvallur.
S. MANIKUMAR, J, mps C.M.A.No.1740 of 2014 and M.P.No.1of 2014 10.06.2014