NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. RADHAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An Insurance Company which was the 3rd respondent in a petition for compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Trivandrum has brought the appeal challenging the decision awarding compensation of Rs. 62,378.24 to the first respondent herein who was the petitioner before the Tribunal. The petitioner was involved in an accident at a place near Kottayam on the National Highway 47 on 27th April 1975 at about 5 p.m., while he was returning to Ernakulam from Trivandrum in his motor car KLR. 7366. The accident was caused by the collision of another car KLQ. 7729 owned by the 1st respondent and was driven by the 2nd respondent in the petition. As a result of the accident the petitioner sustained serious injuries and had to undergo treatment in hospitals at Quilon, Ernakulam and Kolancherry, besides taking Ayurvedic treatment for improving the condition of his leg which was grievously fractured in the accident. He is a lawyer at Ernakulam and had to suspend practice during the period he was undergoing these treatments. The petitioner alleged that the accident was caused by the rashness and negligence with which the 2nd respondent was driving KLQ. 7729. The petition was brought for compensation, general and special, against the owner and driver of KLQ. 7729 and the appellant who was the Insurance Company. All the respondents entered appearance and contested the petition, though the main contesting party appears to have been the appellant before us. They denied that the accident was caused by the rashness or negligence of the 2nd respondent or that the petitioner had suffered damages to the extent claimed by him. They also contended that the petitioner was guilty of contributory negligence and had no right to claim damages.

(2.) The tribunal overruled these defences. On the question of compensation it awarded general damages of Rs. 40,000 and special damages of Rs. 22,378.24 of which Rs. 5,355.08 constitutes the charges which the petitioner had to incur for repairing his car K.L.R. 7366.

(3.) The Insurance Company alone has come up in appeal challenging the decision of the Tribunal.