BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. SAMUEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant/2nd respondent has preferred the present appeal in C.M.A.(MD).No.630 of 2008, against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.135 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No.I, Tuticorin.

(2.) THE petitioner, has filed the claim in M.C.O.P.No.135 of 2003, claiming a compensation of a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- from the respondents, for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident. It was submitted that on 10.09.2002, at about 03.00 p.m., when the petitioner was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing registration No.TN-69E-8749, along with one Kathirvel, as the pillion rider, on the Thoothukudi 1st railway gate to 2nd railway gate main road, on the left side of the road, from west towards east and when the motor cycle was near Bethel hospital, the 1st respondents car bearing registration No.TN-69C-9889, coming from east to west on the same road 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 impact, the petitioner sustained injuries and fractures on bones in their body. As the petitioner sustained injuries, he was not able to file a complaint at the Police Station immediately. The 1st respondent's car driver, in the meanwhile had lodged a false complaint against the petitioner and consequently a criminal case was filed against the petitioner by the Sub Inspector of the Thoothukudi south police station in Crime No.474 of 2002, under section 279, 337 and 338 of IPC. Immediately after the accident, the petitioner was admitted at the Thoothukudi Government Hospital, wherein he received treatment as an inpatient from 10.09.2002 to 12.09.2002. Subsequently, the petitioner took treatment at Thoothukudi AVM Hospital from 12.09.2002 to 25.11.2002 as an inpatient and thereafter took treatment as an outpatient. At the time of accident, the petitioner was aged 24 years and was running a night club near Thoothukudi 1st railway gate and earning Rs.4,000/- per month. Due to the fractures sustained by the petitioner in his spinal cord, the petitioner is unable to sit and walk and unable to do any work. Hence, the petitioner has filed the claim against the 1st and 2nd respondents who are the owner and insurer of the car bearing registration No.TN-69C-9889.

(3.) THE 2nd respondent, in his counter has submitted that the petitioner has to prove through oral and documentary evidence that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the 1st respondent's car. The averments in the claim regarding age, income and occupation of the petitioner, nature of injuries sustained, medical treatment period and medical expenses incurred by the petitioner were also not admitted. It was submitted that the 1st respondent's car driver had driven the car carefully and cautiously and that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent riding by the petitioner. It was submitted that even in the F.I.R, the complaint had been lodged only against the petitioner and he has been charged with being rash and negligent in driving while under the influence of liquor. It was submitted that at the time of accident, the petitioner had only a learners licence. It was submitted that the claim was excessive.