THIAGARAJAN Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR M/S PONDICHERRY AGRO PRODUCTS FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed at the instance of the claimant against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Villupuram at Tindivanam praying for enhancement of compensation.

(2.) THE case of the parties before the tribunal in brief is as follows:- (a) On 03.07.1999 at about 6.30 p.m. when the petitioner was proceeding as a pillion on T.V.S. Motor cycle bearing Regn. No. PY 01 K 2436 rode by one Patchaiyappan to Amirtham Sweets and Snacks Shop, Vazhudavur Road, Thaiashpe, Pondicherry from west to east in the extreme left side of the road, the lorry driver of the mini lorry bearing Regn. No.PY 01 E 5981 who drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner hit against the motor cycle from behind and in that course, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and the rider of the motor cycle too sustained injuries and they were rushed to the nearby private hospitals for treatment. THE accident took place only due to rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry belonging to the first respondent. THE lorry was insured with the second respondent. Both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner for the injuries sustained by him in the road accident. Hence, this petition claiming a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation from the respondents. (b) THE 2nd respondent Insurance Company filed their counter resisting the claim and contending that the age, avocation, income of the petitioner and the injuries sustained, course of treatment and the extent of disablement due to the injuries are denied. THE petitioner is put to strict proof of the same. THE driver of the lorry of the first respondent was no way responsible for the accident. It is only because of the careless and negligent riding of the motorcyclist, the accident had occurred. Since the accident involving two motor vehicles, the other of the motor cycle ought to have been impleaded as one of the necessary parties to the petition. In any event, the claim of compensation is excessive and exorbitant. THE petition is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant would submit that the tribunal had not properly considered the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the claimant. THE petitioner sustained 50% disability due to the injuries as spoken to by P.W.3 Doctor and the tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence of the Doctor coupled with Ex.A7 Disability Certificate. THE tribunal in all awarded only a sum of Rs.33,000/- which is meagre and not in accordance with law. THE petitioner was running a workshop and was operating a lorry of his own and getting a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month at the time of accident. During treatment, for about 4 months he could not attend his work and as such he is entitled to loss of income for 4 months. Further, the tribunal failed to take note of the percentage of disability at 50% and its impact in the day-to-day life of the petitioner. THErefore, he would urge this Court to suitably enhance the award of compensation.