Madras High Court
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs Parimala on 4 October, 2012
Author: C.S.Karnan
Bench: C.S.Karnan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04/10/2012 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN C.M.A.(MD)No.1091 of 2007 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, PL.A.Buildings, Kovai Main Road, Karur. ... Appellant Vs 1.Parimala 2.Gopalakrishnan ... Respondents PRAYER Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the award dated 13.04.2007 made in M.C.O.P.No.422 of 2006, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karur. !For Appellant .. Mr.P.Ramani ^For Respondents .. Mr.A.Saravanan for R-1 No appearance for R-2 :JUDGMENT
The appellant / second respondent has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.422 of 2006, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karur.
2. The short facts of the case are as follows:-
The petitioner has filed the claim in M.C.O.P.No.422 of 2006, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.50,000/- from the respondents for the injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident. It was submitted that on 31.12.2003, when the petitioner was travelling in the first respondent's bus bearing registration No.TN-47-K-5589, which was proceeding to Musiri and Pudukkottai bus stand, the driver of the bus drove it at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, due to which, he lost control of the vehicle and dashed it against the roadside tamarind tree and caused the accident. As a result, the petitioner and some other passengers sustained injuries. Prior to the accident, the petitioner was working in Fenner India Limited and earning Rs.2,250/- per month. Hence, the petitioner has filed the claim against the first and second respondents, who are the owner and insurer of the bus bearing registration No.TN-47-K-5589.
3. The second respondent in his counter has submitted that the petitioner should prove that she had travelled in the first respondent's bus through documentary evidence and also prove the nature of injuries sustained by her and medical expenses incurred. It was submitted that on the day of occurrence of accident, when the driver of the first respondent's bus was driving the bus on the Karur-Trichy Bye pass road and when it was near R.Puddukkottai, he had seen a lorry coming in the opposite direction coming at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and that the driver of the bus in order to avoid collision with the lorry and in order to safeguard the passengers had turned the bus and dashed it against the tamarind tree situated in the side of the road. It was submitted that as the accident had been caused by the driver of the lorry, the driver, owner and insurer of the lorry had to be added as necessary parties. It was submitted that as the first respondent had violated the policy conditions of insurance by permitting more than 58 passengers to travel in the bus, the second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. It was submitted that the claim was excessive.
4. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal had framed three issues for consideration in the case, viz., "(i) Was the accident caused by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the first respondent's bus?
(ii) Is the petitioner entitled to get compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation?
(iii) To what other relief is the petitioner entitled to get?"
5. On the petitioner's side, two witnesses were examined and two documents were marked as Exs.P1 and P2, viz., Ex.P1-copy of F.I.R. and Ex.P2- copy of wound certificate. On the respondent's side, no witness was examined and one document viz., copy of accident register was marked as Ex.R1.
6. P.W.1, the petitioner had adduced evidence which is on the similar lines to the statements contained in the claim regarding manner of accident and in support of her evidence, she had marked Exs.P1 and P2. It was contended on the respondent's side that the petitioner had not travelled in the respondent's bus and had not sustained injuries in the accident and that the accident registered had not been prepared on 31.12.2003, but only prepared on 06.01.2004, and in support of their contentions, they had marked Ex.R1, copy of accident register.
7. P.W.2, Dr.Kannan had adduced evidence that the petitioner had been admitted at Karur Government Hospital, on 31.12.2003, to receive treatment for injuries sustained by her and that on 31.12.2003, the medical officer who was in charge of Karur Government Hospital had negligently not noticed the admission of the petitioner in the hospital and not prepared the accident report and that the accident report was prepared subsequently on 06.01.2004.
8. On scrutiny of Ex.P1, it is seen that the F.I.R. had been registered based on the complaint given by one Subramanian, who had also travelled as a passenger in the bus. It is seen that the averments in the F.I.R. is on similar lines to the statements contained in the claim regarding manner of accident. Hence, the Tribunal on scrutiny of evidence of P.W.1 and on scrutiny of Ex.P1, F.I.R. held that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the first respondent's bus and hence held the first and second respondents jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.
9. On scrutiny of Ex.P2, wound certificate, it is seen that the petitioner was aged 18 years at the time of accident. As no documentary evidence had been marked by the petitioner to show that she was working in Fenner India and earning Rs.2,250/- per month, the Tribunal held that the monthly income of the petitioner could only be taken as Rs.1,500/- per month. P.W.1 had further adduced evidence that due to the accident, she had sustained injuries in her head and right leg and received treatment at Karur Government Hospital from 31.12.2003 to 07.01.2004 and incurred medical expenses of Rs.25,000/-. The Tribunal, on scrutiny of evidence of P.W.2 and Ex.P2, wound certificate observed that the petitioner had sustained only simple injuries. Hence, the Tribunal, awarded a lump sum compensation of a sum of Rs.9,500/- to the petitioner and directed the first and second respondents to jointly and severally pay the said sum together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till date of deposit, with costs, within two months from the date of its order.
10. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the second respondent / appellant has preferred the present appeal.
11. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended in his appeal that the first respondent herein did not produce the bus ticket to prove that she had travelled in the bus bearing registration No.TN-47-K-5589 and that the Tribunal failed to see that the name of the first respondent herein did not find place in the list of injured persons annexed with the F.I.R. It was contended that the Tribunal ought to have held that the first respondent did not sustain any injury in the accident, as the wound certificate does not contain details as to how the first respondent sustained injuries. It was contended that the Tribunal below ought to have dismissed the petition as against the appellant, when the accident information register was not recorded on the date of accident, viz., 31.12.2003. It was contended that the Tribunal ought not to have fastened the liability on the appellant, when the first respondent failed to prove the nexus between the accident and the injuries sustained by her. Hence, it was prayed to set-aside the award passed by the Tribunal.
12. The learned counsel for the claimant contended that the accident had been committed by the driver of the bus in a rash and negligent manner and therefore, the F.I.R. had been registered against him. The claimant had sustained injuries in the said accident. The doctor had also adduced evidence and stated that the claimant had sustained injuries in the said accident and in order to prove the same, wound certificate has been marked.
13. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels 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 claimant was aged about 18 years and she had undergone medical treatment, as inpatient for a period of 7 days, as it is seen from the records. Therefore, the quantum of compensation of a sum of Rs.9,500/- is not on the higher side. The rate of interest is appropriate and remains unaltered. This Court directed the appellant to deposit the entire compensation amount with interest.
14. Now, it is open to the claimant to withdraw the entire compensation amount, with accrued interest thereon, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.422 of 2006, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karur, after filing a Memo, along with a copy of this order.
15. In the result, the above appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the order passed in M.C.O.P.No.422 of 2006, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karur, dated 13.04.2007 is confirmed. There is no order as to costs.
rns To The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Karur.