UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. GANDHIMADHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is preferred by the appellant insurance company against the award dated 05.04.2004 made in M.C.O.P No.139 of 2002 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Subordinate Judge) at Ponneri.

(2.) BACKGROUND facts in a nutshell are as follows: One injured Gandhimadhi met with motor traffic accident on 07.04.2001 at about 10.15.A.M. The said injured was travelling in a Mahindra Van bearing registration No.TN-20-2385 from Avadi to Tiruvannamalai. While the Mahindra Van proceeding in G.S.T road, a Tata Sumo bearing registration No.AP-37 C-9669 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the Mahindra Van. Due to the impact, the claimant sustained grevious injuries. The claimant claimed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation. The said Tata Sumo was insured with the appellant insurance company who resisted the claim. On pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:-

(3.) HEARD the counsel. On the side of the claimant, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P14 were marked. On the side of the appellant insurance company, no one was examined and no document was marked to substantiate their claim. P.W.1 is the claimant. P.W.2 is Dr.Thiagarajan. Ex.P1 dated 07.04.2001 is the First Information Report. Ex.P2 dated 07.04.2001 is the accident register, Ex.P3 dated 09.04.2001 is the motor vehicle inspector's report, Ex.P4 is the insurance certificate, Ex.P5 dated 21.08.2001 is the discharge summary, Ex.P6 dated 01.05.2002 is the discharge summary, Ex.P7 dated 07.07.2002 is the discharge summary given by Ramachandra Hospital, Ex.P8 dated 17.12.2001 is the series of medical bills, Ex.P9 is the photos and negatives, Ex.P10 is X-ray, Ex.P11 is the identity card, Ex.P12 is the salary certificate, Ex.P13 dated 09.03.2004 is the leave certificate, Ex.P14 dated 10.02.2004 is the disability certificate were marked. After considering the above oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has given a categorical finding that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the Tata Sumo. It is a question of fact. The finding is based on valid materials and evidence and therefore, the same is confirmed.