M.BALAMURUGAN Vs. V.SUNDARAMOORTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant/petitioner has preferred the present appeal in CMA(MD).No.1517 of 2011, against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.277 of 2007, dated 31.01.2011, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Valliyoor.

(2.) THE petitioner has filed the claim in M.C.O.P.No.277 of 2007, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- from the respondents for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident. It was submitted that on 26.03.2006, at about 05.15 p.m., when the petitioner was driving the 1st respondent's Maruthi Van bearing registration No.TN-67D-9595, from Madurai to Aruppukottai, along with one Ponnupillai and Rajeswari and when the van was proceeding on the national highways, south of Samathuvapuram, from north to south, the 3rd respondent's Mahendra Van bearing registration No.TN-60-6354, coming in the opposite direction and driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, without observing the traffic rules and regulations, dashed against the 1st respondent's Maruthi Van and caused the accident. As a result, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. Hence, the petitioner has filed the claim against the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents. The 1st and 2nd respondents are the owner and insurer of the Maruthi van bearing registration No.TN-67D-9595 and the 3rd and 4th respondents are the owner and insurer of the Mahendra Van bearing registration No.TN-60-6354.

(3.) THE 4th respondent, in his counter has submitted that the driver of the 3rd respondent drove the Mahindra Van slowly and carefully, from south to north direction, keeping to the extreme left side of the road and that the petitioner, without following the traffic rules, drove his Maruthi Omni Van, on the extreme west side of the road and collided with the 3rd respondent's Mahendra van. It was submitted that the Mallankinaru Police have also registered a case against the driver of the first respondent in Crime No.50 of 2006, under sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC and as such the petitioner can claim compensation only from the 1st and 2nd respondents. It was also submitted that the petitioner had sustained only simple injuries and that his injuries have healed and that he is doing his work as he used to do before the accident. The averments in the claim regarding age, income and occupation of the petitioner, medical treatment taken and medical expenses incurred was also not admitted. It was submitted that the claim was excessive.