LAWS(MAD)-2012-8-309

K. MURUGAN Vs. M. PANCHAVARNAM

Decided On August 03, 2012
K. MURUGAN Appellant
V/S
M. PANCHAVARNAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As against the Judgment and Decree dated 27.09.2002 passed in M.C.O.P.No.55 of 2001 by the learned Subordinate Judge (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Kovilpatti, dismissing the claim petition, the Appellant / Claimant has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

(2.) On 30.03.1999, when the claimant - Murugan, aged about 38 years, working as a Watchman in Fisheries Research Centre, Tuticorin, earning a sum of Rs.3,500/- per month was travelling in the mini Lorry bearing Registration No. TN 69 Z 5205 from Kovilpatti to Ranasurnaichenpatti along with one Sakkian and goods, articles and other items, the lorry was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner. When the driver of the mini lorry had applied sudden break, he was thrown out of the lorry and sustained eight simple injuries and two grievous injuries. He suffered fracture on left arm and dislocation of right shoulder and these are the two grievous injuries suffered by him. He took treatment originally at Government Hospital, Kovilpatti and he was later referred to TVMC Hospital, Palayamkottai and took treatment as inpatient from 30.03.1999 to 05.05.1999. Claiming a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) the claimant has filed the claim petition.

(3.) The claim was resisted by the second respondent Insurance Company on the following contentions:- The accident was not out of the rash and negligent driving on the part of the first respondent's driver. The accident took place only on account of rash and negligent driving of the lorry which came in the opposite direction and dashed against the first respondent's lorry on the rear side. The first investigation done by Nalattinpudhur Police in Crime No.78 of 1999 would disclose the same. Exercising influence over the concerned police, the claimant has made them to file the Charge Sheet against the first respondent's driver. In any event, the compensation claimed is disproportionate to the nature of injuries.