K DEVAKUMAR Vs. A RAJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the claimant as appellant as against the award dated 14.08.2001 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal viz., 4th Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.2375 of 1999 granting a total compensation of Rs.5,97,000/- along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till date of payment.

(2.) THE appellant/claimant has filed the claim petition claiming a total compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- under various heads, for the grievous injuries sustained by him in a road accident.

(3.) TO prove the aspect of negligence the claimant has examined himself as P.W.1. In his evidence as P.W.1, he has deposed that on 12.01.1999 at about 8.30 p.m. in the night he was standing in the TOndiarpet bus depot and at that time the motorcycle TN.4.Y.7366 proceeding to Thiruvottriyur from TOndiarpet came and dashed against him as a result of which he fell down and sustained fracture below the left leg knee and in an auto he went to Government Stanley Hospital and that he was operated upon on his right leg. Ex.P.3 is the certified copy of FIR in which the P.W.1, the claimant figures as the complainant and the accused name is mentioned as motorcycle driver TN.04.Y.7366. A perusal of Ex.P.3-FIR reveals that in Cr.No.9/H3/99 a case has been registered by the Washermanpet Traffic Police under Section 337 I.P.C. R/w.184 M.V. Act. The evidence of P.W.1, the claimant is quite in tune with the averments found in the FIR, in regard to the manner and happening of accident. Admittedly, the appellant/claimant has sustained grievous injuries arising out of the accident resulting in disability. In fact, the appellant, as per Ex.P.7 discharge order dated 03.05.2000, has been discharged from service on medical grounds. He has been found unfit to drive vehicles. There is no contra testimony to discredit the version of P.W.1 in regard to the occurrence of accident. In short, the evidence of P.W.1, the claimant as to the manner of occurrence is unambiguous, convincing and natural. Therefore, this Court accepts the unassailable evidence of P.W.1 in regard to the happening of occurrence as worthy of credence and holds that the accident took place because of the negligent driving of the motorcycle TN.04.Y.7366 by its driver in a high speed and that the driver of the motorcycle is responsible for causing the accident and the finding is rendered accordingly.