THAVODHU Vs. JEM GRANITES; ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/petitioner has preferred the present appeal in C.M.A.(MD)No.941 of 2007, against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.342 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli.

(2.) The petitioner, has filed the claim in M.C.O.P.No.342 of 2004, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the respondents for the injuries sustained by him in a Motor Vehicle Accident. It was submitted that on 10.10.2003, at about 07.50 a.m., when the petitioner was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing registration TN-74A-9185, on the Tirunelveli to Nagercoil Main Road towards Tirunelveli and when he was nearing the curved road at Kavalkinaru near S.A.Dental Hospital, towards east, the 1st respondent's lorry bearing registration No.TN-27C-4079, coming from behind the petitioner and driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the motorcycle and caused the accident. In the result, the petitioner was thrown out of his vehicle and sustained fracture of bone in his nose and head and also sustained injuries in his face. He was immediately admitted at Thiravium hospital at Nagercoil and received treatment as an inpatient from 10.10.2003 to 04.11.2003. Hence, the petitioner has filed the claim against the 1st and 2nd respondents, who are the owner and insurer of the lorry bearing registration No.TN-27C-4079.

(3.) The 2nd respondent, in his counter has submitted that the petitioner, with the help of Police, had changed the site of occurrence of accident. It was submitted that the petitioner did not have a valid licence to ride the motorcycle at the time of accident and that the accident had been caused only due to the rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle by the petitioner and that he had dashed the motorcycle against the front bumper of the lorry and that due to the impact, the front bumper had been bent inwards. It was submitted that the petitioner had not sustained any permanent disability. It was submitted that the claim was excessive.