SELVAM Vs. R PRADEEP KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/petitioner against the Award and Decree, dated 22.08.2005, made in M.C.O.P.No.884 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, First Additional Sub Court, Coimbatore, awarding a compensation of Rs.36,560/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation.

(2.) HAVING not been satisfied with the said Award and Decree, the appellant/petitioner has filed the above appeal praying for additional compensation amount of Rs.1,93,440/-.

(3.) THE second respondent has filed a counter statement and resisted the claim petitioner. THE second respondent has admitted the accident, which had happened on 21.08.2004. Further, he admitted that the said motorcycle bearing registration No.TN 37 AF2049 was insured with the second respondent. Further stated that the petitioner, who turned a cross the road without any signal or indications, was the sole cause of the accident. As such, the rider of the motorcycle is not responsible for the said accident. Further, the respondent learnt that the petitioner had consumed alcohol and ridden the bicycle. THE petitioner has to prove that he sustained injuries on the forehead, facial injuries, injuries on the right eye with loss of vision, injuries on right cheek with two sutures, injuries on right knee with sutures and multiple bodily injuries out of the accident, that he underwent first aid at Balaji Hospital and treated at C.M.C.Hospital, Coimbatore from 31.08.2004 and he has become permanently disabled. THE age, occupation and income of the petitioner are denied and need to be proved. On investigation, this respondent learnt that the petitioner had no permanent or regular income. THE exaggerated averments stating that the petitioner was earning Rs.3,900/- per month are false and incorrect. THE claim for Rs.2,50,000/- for simple injuries caused by the negligence of the petitioner is excessive. As such, the claim petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, he has prayed to dismiss the claim petition with costs.