SANTHOSH Vs. R.VASANTHA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the claimant in O.P.(MV) No.1216 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, Attingal, a petition filed by him under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident which took place on 16.4.2002. The appellant had in the claim petition averred that while he was travelling in a lorry owned by the first respondent and driven by the second respondent, it capsized into a river on account of the rash and negligent driving of the second respondent and in that accident he sustained serious injuries. It was stated that following the accident he was initially taken to St.Joseph's Hospital, Anchal and thereafter to Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram on the next day where he underwent treatment as an inpatient till 22.4.2002 and as an outpatient thereafter. He had also stated that during the period from 1.7.2002 to 27.8.2002 he was treated as an outpatient in the Department of Physical Medicine for gait training. The appellant contended that as a result of the accident he has become permanently disabled and will have to depend on others for the rest of his life. He had also contended that the accident took place solely on account of the rash and negligent driving of the second respondent. The appellant had further averred that at the relevant time he was employed as a cleaner-cum-mechanic in the lorry owned by the first respondent and that he was earning a monthly income of Rs.6,000/-.

(2.) Though notice was served, the owner and driver of the lorry did not enter appearance, with the result, they were set ex-parte. The third respondent, the insurer of the lorry entered appearance and filed a written statement admitting insurance coverage for the lorry but contending that the compensation claimed is exorbitant and excessive. The insurer also disputed the age, income and occupation of the injured as also the nature of the injuries and the period of treatment undergone by the victim of the accident.

(3.) Before the tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced on either side. However, on the side of the claimant Exts.A1 to A10 series were produced and marked. After considering the rival contentions, the tribunal held mainly relying on Ext.A1 F.I.R. and Ext.A4 charge sheet that the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the second respondent. The tribunal also held that in that accident the claimant sustained serious injuries. The tribunal thereafter awarded an aggregate sum of Rs.63,087/- as compensation, as detailed below: