UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. R. PITCHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/2nd respondent has preferred the present appeal in C.M.A. (MD). No. 527 of 2008, against the order passed in W.C. No. 200 of 2006, on the file of the Workmen's Compensation, Dindigul. The petitioner, has filed the claim in W.C. No. 200 of 2006, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- from the respondents, for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident, during the course of doing his work as a driver under the employment of the 1st respondent. It was submitted that the petitioner was employed as a driver of the 1st respondents Omni van bearing registration No. TN-49W-4613 and that he was getting a salary of Rs. 4,000/- per month. On 5.5.2006, at about 5.30 a.m., when the petitioner was driving the 1st respondents van on the Karur-Dindigul road and when it was nearing the Regional Transport Office, the van capsized and caused the accident. In the impact, the petitioner sustained injuries all over his body and received treatment at Amaravathi hospital, Karur, as an inpatient, from 4.5.2006 to 30.5.2006. It was submitted that the petitioner had spent Rs. 75,000/- for medical expenses and that due to the injuries sustained by him in the said accident, he had sustained permanent disability and not able to do any work. Hence, the petitioner has filed the above claim against the 1st and 2nd respondents, who are the owner and insurer of the Omni Van bearing registration No. TN-49W-4613.

(2.) The 2nd respondent, in his counter has denied the averments in the claim regarding age, income and occupation of the petitioner, nature of injuries and medical treatment taken by him. It was submitted that the petitioner has to prove that he sustained the injuries in the accident while he was doing his work as an employee and in the course of employment under the 1st respondent through documentary evidence. It was submitted that the petitioner has to prove that the vehicle involved in the accident had been insured with the 2nd respondent, through documentary evidence and that the vehicle was covered under a valid R.C. and that the driver of the vehicle had a valid driving licence at the time of accident. It was also submitted that the petitioner had not sustained any permanent disability, as alleged in the claim and that the accident had occurred only due to the negligence of the petitioner. It was submitted that the claim was excessive.

(3.) On the petitioners side, the petitioner viz., R. Pitchai, was examined as P.W. 1 and six documents were marked as Exhibits P-1 to P6 namely Exhibit P-1-F.I.R; Exhibit P-2-wound certificate; Exhibit P-3-R.C. book; Exhibit P-4-insurance policy; Exhibit P-5-driving licence; Exhibit P-6-discharge summary. One doctor R. Karuppiah was examined as P.W. 2 and he had marked the Exhibits P-7 and P-8 namely Exhibit P-7 disability certificate and Exhibit P-8- x rays. On the 2nd respondents side, no witness, no documents.