ARABINDA MEDDA Vs. SRI V SUBBA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is preferred by the claimant against the Judgment and Decree dated 01.11.2001 made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.489 of 1999 on the file of the VI Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Court of Small Causes) Chennai.

(2.) BACKGROUND facts in nutshell are as follows: The injured-Arabinda Medda met with motor vehicle accident on 18.11.1998 at about 4.10 p.m. While the injured was proceeding in his Motorcycle bearing registration No.TSC 1176 at Luz Church Road, Chennai-600 004, a Maruthi Van bearing Registration No. TN 07 A 8260 belonging to the first respondent came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the claimant. Due to the impact, the claimant sustained grievous injuries. The Maruthi Van belonging to the first respondent was insured with the second respondent/Insurance Company. Though, the claimant/injured claimed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-, he has restricted his claim to Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation. The 2nd Respondent-Insurance Company 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 P6 were marked. On the side of the respondents, no one was examined and no documents were marked. P.W.1 is the claimant. He has himself given oral evidence. PW2 is Dr. Thiagarajan, who examined the injured. Ex.P1 is the Discharge Summary. Ex.P2 is the series of bills. Ex.P3 is the Doctor's fee bills. Ex.P4 is the First Information Report. Ex.P5 is the copy of Rough sketch. Ex.P6 is the Disability Certificate. After considering the above oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal had given a categorical finding that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Maruthi Van and awarded the compensation. The finding is based on valid materials and evidence and the same is confirmed.