VASANTHAKUMARI Vs. VINOTH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant/claimant has filed a claim case in M.C.O.P.No.6 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Judge, Kuzhithurai, Kanyakumari District, against the respondents, stating that on 14.01.1998, at about 05.15 p.m., when she and her father and brother were waiting at the Nagagodu Junction Bus Stop for boarding a bus, the 1st respondent had driven the

(2.) ND respondent's Mahindra Van, from south to North, on the Marthandam Kulasekaran road, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against her. Immediately, she had been taken to the medical college hospital, Thiruvananthapuram, wherein she was admitted as an inpatient. Hence, the claimant has filed the claim petition claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.10,00,000.00 with interest. 2. The 3rd respondent/National Insurance Company had filed a counter statement and had denied the accident. It was submitted that the claimant had crossed the road in a rash and negligent manner and had invited the said accident. The averments in the claim regarding loss of earning capacity had been denied. It was also submitted that the claim is on the higher side. After considering the averments of both parties, the Tribunal had framed two issues namely: (1) Due to whose negligence did the accident happen?; (2) Whether the claimant is entitled to receive compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation. On the side of the claimant, four witnesses have been examined and some documents were marked namely: F.I.R, rough sketch, observation mahazar, Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report, Salary certificate, accident report, Trip Sheets(series), medical bills (series) and bills, disability certificates etc. On the side of the respondent, no witness and no document was marked.

(3.) PW .2, had adduced evidence stating that he is a doctor and that he and his wife i.e., PW.1 had conducted a Private Clinic. After the accident, his wife did not attend the clinic. In the result, women patients had not come to the clinic. As such, his wife had lost an income of a sum of Rs.20,000.00. PW.3, Doctor, had adduced evidence stating that he had examined the claimant and had found that her right chest rib bone 1 to 4 were fractured, as a result of which she had intolerable pain on her right chest. Besides this, her carlic bone on her right shoulder was also fractured. He had assessed the disability sustained by the claimant as 60%. PW.4, stated that the claimants right side jaw bone had also been fractured and there is a permanent scar on her upper lip. Hence, he assessed the disability on this count as 30%.