JUNIOR ENGINEER HIGHWAYS DEPARTMENT, Vs. YASHODHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the finding fixing negligence on the driver of a Road Roller bearing Regn.No.TMK-5204 owned by the Highways Department and the consequential liability to pay compensation to the legal representatives of the accident victim, who died during the pendency of the claim petition in MCOP No.2002 of 2003, instituted by the injured and the quantum of compensation of L 7,80,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum awarded to the legal representatives, Highways Department, has filed this appeal. The accident has occurred on 03.06.2002. The injured died on 12.12.2004. Hence the appellant insurance company has submitted that there was no proximity between the injuries and death. Hence the abovesaid reasons, the Highways Department has filed the appeal.

(2.) According to the respondents/claimants, that on 03.06.2002, about 15.00 hrs, while the deceased was carrying a baby in a TVS 50 two wheeler on Agaram to Karimangalam road, near Ramarkottai, a Road Roller bearing Regn.No.TMK 5204, which came in the opposite direction driven in a rash and negligence manner by its driver, dashed against the TVS 50. The pillion rider fell down. The Road Roller ran over her body. Husband who was riding the motorcycle also sustained injuries. The pillion rider sustained injuries in L4 with spine burst and dislocation in L5, dislocation and lacerated injuries in the hip. She was treated in Government Hospital, Dharmapuri and in St.Johns Hospital, Bangalore. Despite continuous treatment from 03.06.2002, she died on 12.12.2004. To prove the manner of accident, injuries sustained, disability suffered, the injured herself had let in oral evidence as PW1. PW3, is the husband and P4 is the occurrence witness. PW2, PW4 and PW5 are the Doctors. Ex.P1, FIR, Ex.P2, Wound certificate issued by Government Hospital, Dharmapuri, Ex.P3, Medical Bills, Ex.P4, Scan Report, Ex.P5, Case summary, Ex.P6 and P8, Medical Prescriptions, Ex.P7, Disability certificate, Ex.P9, Case summary and Ex.P10, TPR Chart, have been marked. The injured Yasodha, who examined herself as PW1, died on 12.12.2004. Legal representatives have stepped in and contended that the death was due to the accident and the grievous injuries sustained by her.

(3.) On behalf of the Highways department, RW1, Sub Inspector of Police, the investigating officer has been examined. He has deposed that the accident did not occur as claimed by the respondents/claimants. According to him, the motorcyclist lost his balance and while crossing the Road Roller, the right handle bar of the motorcycle dashed against the left side wheel of the Road Roller and thus, the rider caused the accident. The Criminal case has been closed as 'Mistake of Fact'. Whereas RW2, driver of the Road Roller in his testimony has deposed that in the TVS 50, three persons travelled. Though, RW1, Sub Inspector of Police and the investigating officer in Crime No.165/2002, under Section 279, 337, 338, IPC on the file of Nagarasampatti Police Station has deposed that the handle bar of the motorcycle touched the back wheel of the Road Roller and that the motorcyclist lost his balance, fell down and sustained head injuries, quite contrary to the same, RW2, driver of the Road Roller, in his evidence has deposed that TVS-50 vehicle, carrying three persons was driven on the mud road, the motorcyclist lost his balance, fell down in a pit and thus, sustained head injuries. No document has been marked on behalf of the appellant. Testing the evidence on the principles of preponderance of probabilities, the claims tribunal held that the driver of the Road Roller, which belonged to the Highways Department was negligent in causing the accident. Considering the nature of injuries, period of treatment and the testimony of PW2, PW5 and PW6 Doctors, the Claims Tribunal held that the grievous injuries, suffered by the injured, resulted in death and that there was clear nexus. After arriving at the above said conclusion, the claims tribunal quantified the loss of contribution to the family, by applying the principles of law followed in fatal cases and awarded a sum of L 7,80,000/- with interest, at the rate of 7.5% per annum to the legal representatives of the deceased, which includes medical expenses to the tune of L 3,20,000/-.