N GHOUSE Vs. P UDAYAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is preferred by the claimant against the award dated 04.04.2002 made in M.C.O.P No.2962 of 1997 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, VI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

(2.) BACKGROUND facts in a nutshell are as follows: One injured Ghouse met with motor traffic accident on 04.06.1997 at about 03.00 P.M. While the said injured was proceeding in his motor cycle bearing registration No.TN-09-D-9508 in New Mamallapuram road, a Lorry bearing registration No.TDW 5783 came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and the driver of the Lorry suddenly turned the vehicle and hit the motor cycle. Due to the impact, the injured sustained grievous injuries and fracture. He was admitted in Sugam Hospital, Chennai. He claimed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation. The said lorry was insured with the second respondent 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 P8 were marked. On the side of the 2nd respondent insurance company, no one was examined and no document was marked to substantiate their claim. P.W.1 is one Noor Mohammed, who is the father of the deceased. P.W.2 is Dr.Saichandran. Ex.P1 is the discharge summary, Ex.P2 is the series of receipts, Ex.P3 and P4 are the medical receipts, Ex.P5 is the certified copy of the FIR, Ex.P6 is the certified copy of the charge sheet, Ex.P7 is the copy of the judgment of Criminal Court, Ex.P8 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 driver of the lorry. It is a question of fact. The finding is based on valid materials and evidence and therefore, the same is confirmed.