K SANKARA NAMASIVAYAM Vs. C PONNUSAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHILE the appellant/claimant was proceeding in his motor cycle from Erode Bus Terminus on 13.02.1997 at 9.30 a.m., a passenger bus bearing Registration No.TCG 2772, came behind his motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant's vehicle, by means of which his right leg was fractured and his bike also got damaged. The claimant was removed to L.K.M. Hospital, Erode, and had taken treatment till 24.02.1997 as inpatient. He was working as Medical Representative in Food Drugs & Chemicals Ltd., Hence a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- is claimed.

(2.) IN the Counter filed by the 3rd respondent/National INsurance Co. Ltd., Erode, it is stated that the claimant drove his vehicle in the restricted area and the accident had taken place due to his carelessness and negligence of the claimant. IN the counter filed by the 4th respondent/New INdia Assurance Co. Ltd., Erode it is stated that the accident took place only due to the rash and negligent driving by the first respondent. The age, income and avocation of the claimant are denied and the claim is exorbitant.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant/claimant would submit in his argument that the lower court had without considering the sufferings and the plight of the claimant due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident, awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- only. A sum of Rs.25,000/- has been awarded towards permanent disability caused due to the grievous injuries sustained by him. Rs.8,000/- towards Medical Expenses Rs.1,500/- towards Extra Nourishment Rs.5,000/- towards Pain and Sufferings and Rs.500/- towards transport charges have been granted. He would also submit in his argument that the lower court had not considered the compensation for loss of amenities and the compensation on other categories which are liable to be paid to the claimant. Moreover, the Lower court had not considered that the claimant was working as Medical Representative in a private company and he was removed from the employment after he sustained permanent disability due to the injuries. He would therefore request the court to fix the compensation for permanent disability at 25%, is a total disablement and enhance the compensation as prayed for. He would also request the court to allow the appeal.