VADIVEL Vs. RAMESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the claimant before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nammakkal, being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation for the injuries he sustained in the motor accident occurred on 23/09/2006 at about 4.00 am.

(2.) The appellant herein while driving the Maruthi Omni Van bearing registration No. TN. 59 H 6525 on the Poonamallee to Thiruvallur Highways, near MelManalmedu, hit the TATA mini lorry parked without any indicator. The claimant was severely injured all over the body. He was admitted in the SRMC hospital and treated for 35 days. In the accident his left eye got injured and lost his left eye vision. His jaw got fractured and 4 tooth got uprooted causing disfiguration of the face. The crash of abdomen was operated and 3 feet intestine was removed (hernioplasty). At the time of accident, he was self-employed carrying on electrical service and pandal business earning Rs.10,000 per month. Alleging negligence on the TATA van owner who negligently parked the vehicle without and red indicator, compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- against the TATA mini lorry owner and its insurer was claimed.

(3.) The claim petition was contested by the Insurance Company on the ground that the claimant is the actual tort-feasor. He drew his vehicle rash and negligently and ramped into the stationary van parked on the extreme left road margin during the early hours of 23/09/2006. The owner of the Maruthi Omni van and its Insurance Company alone are liable for paying compensation, if any. Since the accident took place due to the negligence of the Omni Van driver namely the claimant, the Insurance Company of the mini lorry which was stationed cannot be held liable. In case, if the Tribunal holds that there was negligence on the part of the TATA van owner also for not putting the red indicator, contribution of the claimant for the accident has to be taken note.