Madras High Court
M/S. United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs A.Renganathan on 4 December, 2008
Author: S.Palanivelu
Bench: S.Palanivelu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 04/12/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU C.M.A. (MD) No.1541 of 2008 and M.P. (MD) No.2 of 2008 M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., No.30, Ramakrishnapuram North, Karur - 1. ... Appellant Vs. 1. A.Renganathan 2. K.P.Tamilselvan ... Respondents (R2 remained ex parte before the Tribunal. Hence, notice to R2 may be dispensed with) Prayer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of The Motor Vehicles Act 1988 against order dated 20.07.2007 made in M.C.O.P. No.691 of 2004 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Judge), Karur. !For Appellant ... Mr.R.Maheswaran ^For Respondents ... Mr.N.Shanmuga Selvam * * * :ORDER
The appellant is the second respondent in M.C.O.P. No.691 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Karur. The first respondent filed the claim petition praying a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident, which took place on 12.09.2004 at 5.00 p.m. while he was walking along the Karur-Salem bye-pass road. It is stated that a lorry bearing registration No.TN 28 Y 3868 was driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against him and thereby, he received injuries including a fracture. He spent Rs.75,000/- for medical expenses. He was earning Rs.4,500/- per month by working as mechanic in Nanban Auto Diesel Works. The lorry driver was responsible for the accident. The second respondent has insured the vehicle of the first respondent.
2. In the Counter filed by the second respondent Insurance Company, it is alleged that the appellant colluded with one Mathivanan, S/o.Thiyagarajan and falsely implicated the lorry belonging to the first respondent. The lorry mentioned in the petition is not responsible for the accident. The allegations as regards the avocation, income and nature of injuries are denied. The compensation claimed is excessive. Hence, the petition may be dismissed.
3. The learned Tribunal Judge has awarded a sum of Rs.52,800/- to be payable by the respondents and their liabilities was determined jointly and severally. The appellant has challenged the said award on two grounds in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. Firstly, on the genuineness of the wound certificate, discharge summary pertained to the claimant issued by Dr.G.C. Orthopaedic and Trauma Centre in Karur and nextly with respect to quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
4. Heard both sides.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant Mr.R.Maheshwaran, argued in vehemence to convince this Court that material alterations have been made in the wound certificate which originated at the first occasion, immediately after the alleged accident and that the Tribunal has not appreciated the oral evidence on record and the relevant documents properly but has rendered findings which are not sustainable.
6. This Court called for the entire records in the M.C.O.P. proceedings and the file regarding crime No.1400/2004 on the file of the Karur Police Station as well to ascertain the genuineness of the documents which are under challenge before this Court. The accident took place on 12.09.2004 and the claimant was admitted to the above said infirmary on that day itself. It is the contention of the appellant that there are some corrections with regard to the date and the registration number of the lorry in the wound certificate which would lead to an observation that it is bogus claim. In the wound certificate issued by Dr.J.Rajnikanth, who is Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon in the said hospital, it is stated that on 12.09.2004 at 5.00 p.m. while the claimant was walking along the Karur-Salem bye-pass road, the lorry bearing registration No.TN28 Y 3868 dashed against him and hence, the accident took place. This Court do not find any correction either in the date or in the registration number of the vehicle in the wound certificate. The learned counsel for the appellant also draws attention of this Court to Ex.B1, which is the claim petition given by this claimant to the appellant, stating that he himself admitted in the Hospital on 13.09.2004. Even though Ex.A5 shows the date of admission as 12.09.2004, the said discrepancy is not a material one so as to affect the case of the claimant.
7. This Court has also perused the First Information Report lodged in the police station and other relevant records annexed thereto and there is no corrections in the material particulars. The Tribunal Judge has observed that the Doctor by name J.Rajnikanth deposed that if the number of the vehicle was wrongly written, it would have been corrected. It is a hypothetical question for which his answer stood as such. In fact, there is no alteration with regard to date and registration number of the vehicle.
8. The cumulative effect of the above said discussion would go a long way to show that the documents maintained and issued by the hospital are genuine and there is no circumstance to smell a rat upon them. In this regard, the observations of the Tribunal have to be confirmed. It is concluded that the accident took place as described by the claimant. By going through the oral evidence, the Tribunal has also anchored responsibility on the lorry driver for causing the accident. Interference with the said observations is not warranted.
9. The next limb of contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that without any document to show the income of the claimant, the Tribunal has fixed Rs.3,000/- per month as income of the claimant which is not sustainable. In like cases, there could be no documentary piece of evidence to show the income of the parties. It is his version that he was earning Rs.4,500/- by working as mechanic in a workshop. There is nothing wrong on the part of the Tribunal to fix Rs.3,000/- as monthly income.
10. Adverting to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- for the difficulties to be experienced by the claimant in ordinary pursuits and a lump sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of income, Rs.5,000/- for pain and sufferings and Rs.17,300/- on account of medical expenses as borne out by records.
11. In the considered view of this Court, there is no error committed by the Tribunal to arrive at the conclusion with regard to various heads of compensation. They are all confirmed by this Court. It could not be stated that the quantum is excessive. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal does not merit for consideration. It suffers dismissal.
12. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
srm To The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Judge), Karur.