Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3.The short facts of the case are as follows:

The petitioner/Jagannathan, aged about 24 years is a delivery boy in Sansor Couriers, Chennai-6 and earning a monthly salary of Rs.1,500/- per month. On 30.07.1998, at about 5.15 P.M. when the petitioner was going by cycle from South to North on the Barnaby Road, Kilpauk, Chennai-10, on the extreme left side, a Kinetic Honda Scooter bearing registration No.KA 03 L 564, driven rashly and negligently by its rider dashed on the back of the left hand side of the petitioner's body. The petitioner fell down from the cycle and sustained injuries and the cycle was also damaged. He was taken to ESI Hospital at Ayanavaram, Chennai-23 and was given treatment, as inpatient for two months. Both bones in his left leg were fractured. Due to this, the petitioner is not able to walk and frequently gets pain in left leg and hence the petitioner is not able to go to work. As the accident has been caused by the rash and negligence driving of the driver/owner of the vehicle, the first respondent herein and as the said motorcycle has been insured with the second respondent, both the respondents on jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. The petitioner has initially claimed Rs.51,000/- for injuries sustained but had claimed compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- under various heads from the respondents with interest and costs under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rule of M.A.C.T.Rules.

6.The first respondent remained absent, in spite of the notice sent to him and was set exparte.

7.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed two issues for the consideration namely

(i) Who was responsible for the accident?

(ii) Is the petitioner entitled to get compensation and if so, what is the quantum of the compensation?

8.On the petitioner's side, two witnesses were examined and seven documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P7. On the respondent's side, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked. Both the petitioner and the respondent had admitted that the alleged accident took place on 30.07.1998 at 05.15 P.M., on Barnaby Road, Chennai-10. It was also admitted by the both parties that the petitioner was riding his cycle and the first respondent was riding his Kinetic Honda bearing registration No.KA03 L 564 and that the said Kinetic Honda has been insured with the second respondent herein. The petitioner, on being examined as PW1 has deposed in his evidence that while he was riding his cycle on Barnaby Road, the first respondent had dashed his Kinetic Honda Motorcycle on the back of the petitioner and that it was only the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent, which had caused the accident. Further, on being cross-examined, he has not admitted that he travelled in the middle of the road. Further, the petitioner on being asked whether there was a yellow line on the road had answered in the negative. PW1 stated that the accident happened in front of the junction of three roads. Further, on being asked whether there was a traffic signal at the place of the accident, PW1 answered in the negative. Further, PW1 had refused the allegation that he had colluded with the Police in filing this claim case.