SAHABUDEEN Vs. V HARIDASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE injured claimant has filed this Civil miscellaneous Appeal questioning the award of the Motor Accident Tribunal, 1 Additional district-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, coimbatore herein referred to as the Tribunal)made in M. A. C. T. O. P. No. 5/1995 dated 25th March, 1997 in respect of the grievous injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that took place on 23rd November, 1994. The appellant/claimant herein prayed for a compensation of Rs. 3,50,000 in support of his claim, he himself was examined as p. W. 1 and Dr. Deivangaperumal was examined as P. W. 2, besides marking Ext. P-1 to P-5. On the side of the respondents, no oral and documentary evidence was let in. The tribunal, after analyzing the materials, held, that the accident was caused due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle in question and passed an award for rs. 1,00,000/- with 12% interest from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Aggrieved by the award passed by the tribunal, the appellant herein has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation.

(2.) BEFORE the Tribunal, it was the case of the appellant/claimant that on 23rd november, 1994 at 11. 15 p. m. , when he was walking in Vincent Road in Ukkadam, from south to north direction, the first respondent drove the lorry bearing Registration No. TN 37 Z 0295 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the injured claimant, causing a fracture in his right leg, besides several other injuries. Immediately, the injured claimant was admitted in the Coimbatore general Hospital, wherein his right leg was amputated and he was also given treatment for other injuries. On complaint, the police registered a case in C. C. No. 313 of 1994 against the first respondent, who is the driver of the lorry in question. The second respondent is the owner of the lorry, which is insured with the third respondent, insurance Company. For the loss sustained by the injured, the appellant/claimant claimed a compensation of Rs. 3,50,000/-with interest and costs. A t the time of accident, the claimant was aged 27, was hale and healthy and was employed as Coolie, earning rs. 100/- per day.

(3.) REGARDING the involvement of the vehicle in the accident and the cause of negligence, the injured himself was examined as a witness as P. W. 1 and the doctor as p. W. 2; the Exhibits, P-1-First Information report, P-2-Disability Certificate, P-3-X-ray report, P-4- Wound Certificate and P-5-Salary certificate were also marked, based on which the injured made a claim for compensation. The first respondent was called absent and he was set ex parte. The third respondent insurance Company filed a counter affidavit contending that the application for compensation was made on imaginary grounds so as to seek mercy of the Tribunal. It was denied by the third respondent that the claimant was walking on Vincent Road in Ukkadam, from south to north direction on 23rd November, 1994 and the lorry bearing registration No. TN-37/z-0295 came in that direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the injured. Also, the third respondent questioned the age factor of the injured claimant, his income, the nature of the injury sustained by him and also the disablement caused on account of the accident. In any event, the claim of Rs. 3,000/-for loss of earning Rs. 7,000/- for extra nourishment and Rs. 10,000/- for medical expenses are all not admitted. Equally, the third respondent Insurance Company questioned the award under the heads of pain and suffering, permanent disability as well as loss of earning and also submitted that the claim made by the injured claimant was excessive, not based on any material evidence and prayed the Tribunal to dismiss the claim petition. No oral and documentary evidence was adduced on the side of the respondents in their defence.