ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. M.DURAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant/2nd respondent has preferred the present appeal in CMA(MD).No.563 of 2012, against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.22 of 2007, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Tutiicorin.

(2.) THE short facts of the case are as follows:- The petitioner has filed a claim in M.C.O.P.No.22 of 2007, claiming a compensation of a sum of Rs.5,00,000.00 from the respondents, for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident. It was submitted that the petitioner was employed as a cleaner in Annaimuthu Lorry Service, Thoothukudi and earning Rs.6,000.00 per month. On 25.10.2006, the petitioner travelled in his company's lorry as a cleaner and unloaded a coal load for M/s.Chappell and Company, in the 4th berth at the New Harbour, at Thoothukudi. At about 11.15 a.m., the driver of the petitioner's company lorry had parked the lorry at the North West corner of the T Shed II at the Harbour and the petitioner after getting the pass from the Traffic Office, started to walk on the left side of the road between the T Shed II and ODC room from west to south. At that time, the respondents lorry bearing registration No.TMD-7965, coming in the opposite direction and driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the petitioner. In the impact, the petitioner was thrown out and sustained bleeding injuries in his nose and right ear and also sustained severe injuries in his head and fell down unconscious. He was immediately admitted at the Thoothukudi Government Hospital, as an inpatient and received treatment here from 25.10.2006 to 20.11.2006. At present, the petitioner is still receiving treatment as an outpatient. As a result of the accident, the petitioner is not able to do his work as before. Hence, the petitioner has preferred the claim as against the 1st and 2nd respondents, who are the owner and insurer of the said lorry bearing registration No.TMD-7965.

(3.) THE 2nd respondent, in his counter has denied the averments in the claim regarding nature of accident as well as the age, income and occupation of the petitioner, medical expenses incurred and disability sustained. It was submitted that the accident occurred only due to negligence of the petitioner. It was submitted that the claim was excessive.