ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. MALLIKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is preferred by the appellant-Insurance company as well as the owner of the vehicle against the award dated 12.12.2001 made in MCOP No.176 of 1999 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional Subordinate Judge), Cuddalore.

(2.) BACKGROUND facts in a nutshell are as follows: The injured-Mallika met with a motor vehicle accident that took place on 25.06.1998 at about 4.45p.m. While the said injured was travelling in the second appellant's bus bearing registration No.PY-01-J-2709, which was insured with the first appellant-Insurance company, from Cuddalore to Pondicherry, the driver driven the same in a rash and negligent manner, due to which, the bus was capsized at Chinnakanganankuppam, Pondy-Cuddalore Main Road. Due to the said impact, the respondent-claimant sustained grievous injuries. The claimant was immediately admitted in Ashoka Nursing Home, Pondicherry. She claimed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation before the Tribunal. The first appellant-Insurance company resisted the claim. On pleadings the Tribunal framed the following issues:- 1. In whose negligence the accident had occurred? 2. Whether the respondent/claimant is entitled to compensation? If so, how much compensation? After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the second appellant's bus, which was insured with the first appellant-Insurance company and awarded a compensation of Rs.3,85,430/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition and the details of the same are as under:- Permanent disability Rs.2,91,170/- `Travelling expenses(taxi) Rs. 43,975/- Medical bills Rs. 40,284/- Pain and sufferings Rs. 5,000/- Extra nourishment Rs. 5,000/- ------------------ Total...Rs.3,85,429/- ------------------ Rounded off to Rs.3,85,430/- Aggrieved by that award, the appellant-Insurance company as well as the owner of the bus have filed the present appeal.

(3.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the materials available on record. On the side of the claimant, P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P59 were marked. On the side of the first appellant-Insurance company, no one was examined and no document was marked to support their claim. P.W.1 is the claimant. PW2 is the Doctor Venugopal. PW3-Arul is the driver of the taxi. PW4-Kannan @ Vadamalai and PW5-Sangeetha are examined to prove the income of the claimant. Ex.P1 is the xerox copy of the First Information Report. Ex.P2 is the copy of the motor vehicle Inspector's report. Ex.P3 is the wound certificate. Ex.P4 is the discharge summary. Exs.P5 and P6 are the discharge notices. Ex.P7 is the Electro Cardiogram Report. Exs.P8 to P12 and P22 to P41 are the medical receipts. Exs.P13 to 21 are medical bills. Ex.P42 is the daily report. Ex.P43 is the salary certificate. Ex.P44 is the certificate of registration relating to the bus. Ex.P45 is the copy of the Insurance certificate. Ex.P46 is the copy of the driving licence. Exs.P47 to 56 are the X-rays. Ex.57 is the disability certificate. Ex.P58 is the X-ray. Ex.P59 is the Taxi receipts. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal had given a categorical finding that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the second appellant's bus, which was insured with the first appellant-Insurance company and the first appellant-Insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the respondent/claimant and the finding is based on valid materials and evidence.