A CHINNADURAI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE I DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is the award passed in M. C. O. P. No. 59 of 2010 dated 09.06.2011 awarding compensation of Rs. 14,48,000/- for the injuries sustained by the 1st Respondent-Claimant. Brief facts are that on 20.02.2010, in the midnight at 1.00 P. M. , 1st Respondent-Claimant was driving the Tata Indica Car bearing registration No. TN-23 AT 6367. When the Car was proceeding near Vaniyambadi in Coimbatore-Salem NH-47 main road at about 3.30 A. M. in Chit ode IRTT junction, 407 van bearing registration No. TN-33 AP 6102 came in the opposite direction from south to north driven in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the Tata Indica Car. Due to the accident, Claimant sustained severe head injuries, deformity in right thigh, fracture in right knee, fracture in right femur. There was a contusion in his temporal region and the Claimant became unconscious. He was admitted in Government Hospital, Erode. After first aid treatment in Erode Government Hospital, Claimant was admitted in Salem Vinayaga Mission Hi-Tech Hospital. Regarding the accident a Criminal Case in Crime No. 80/2010 of Chit ode Police Station was registered against the van driver under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC. At the time of accident, Claimant was working as driver and getting salary of Rs. 15,000/- per month. The accident was on 20.02.2010. Within one month thereafter the Claim Petition was filed. At the time of filing of Claim Petition, Claimant-Venkatesan @ Mayan was unconscious and not in a position to take care of himself. Hence, Claim Petition came to be filed by the wife-Deepak representing the Claimant.

(2.) Denying the manner of accident, Appellant-Insurance Company has filed the counter contending that 407 van [TN-33 AP 6102] driver was not rash and negligent and only the Claimant was driving the Tata Indica Car in a negligent manner. The owner of Tata Indica Car which the Claimant was driving and the Insurance Company ought to have been impleaded as Respondents. Appellant-Insurance Company also denied the age, occupation and income of the 1st Respondent-Claimant.

(3.) In the Tribunal, wife of the Claimant-Deepak was examined as PW1. Eye-witness-Dakshinamurthy was examined as PW2. Dr. P. Ramakrishnan, who issued Ex. P14-Disability certificate was examined as PW3. Dr. A. D. Sampathkumar, who issued Ex. P17-Disability certificate was examined as PW4. Exs. P1 to P18 were marked. No oral and documentary evidence was adduced on the side of Appellant-Insurance Company.