NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. KALAISELVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CIVIL Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and decree dated 12.02.2002 and made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.4 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (2nd Additional Sub-Judge), Gopichettipalayam.On 25.06.1998 at about 8.00 a.m. while the first respondent was going to attend her call of nature in Shenbagapudur, the tempo bearing Registration No.TN-37-5037 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the petitioner and caused her injuries. She was immediately removed to Sathyamangalam Government Hospital and for further treatment referred to Coimbatore Medical College Hospital. She was earning a sum of Rs.3,000 - 6,000 by running a tea stall. She was aged 35 years at the time of accident. After the accident, she was unable to run tea stall. She is suffering from giddiness frequently, partial vision loss in her eye. The accident had occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the tempo driver. Hence compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- was claimed.

(2.) IN the counter filed by the third respondent/appellant herein, it is stated that the accident took place only due to the negligence and the carelessness of the claimant. IN the F.I.R., there is no mention about the name of the driver or his whereabouts and the Registration Number of the Van, alleged to have hit the petitioners. The other particulars with regard to the Van driver have been manipulated and introduced to develop the case with a bad intention to claim an illegal compensation. The Tempo van with Registration No.TN-37-5037 has been shown in the case records only with a purpose of claiming compensation and it is not the vehicle which dashed the petitioner on that day at that odd hour. With the connivance of police and other interested parties, with a purpose of creating record, the driver/second respondent herein, was compelled to appear before the police and court and forced to admit the offence with malafide intention to claim compensation and thus to make the driver/second respondent herein, liable to pay compensation. The admission by the driver/second respondent herein, which resulted to convict him could not be the basis for award of compensation. The injuries sustained by the claimant, which are simple in nature. The compensation claimed under various heads is disproportionate. Hence the petition may be dismissed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for 1st respondent/claimant would contend that inasmuch as second respondent/driver himself voluntarily admitted the offence before the Criminal Court, the finding furnished by the Tribunal is proper and there is no necessity to interfere. In support of his contention, he draws attention of this Court to the decision of Division Bench of Karnataka High Court reported in 1985 ACJ 789 [Basavaiah v. N.S. Ashok Kumar and another] in which it is held that as the driver of the offending vehicle on his own plea of guilty to the charge of rash and negligent driving, he was convicted and sentenced, that being so, the Car driven by him in a rash and negligent manner resulted in the accident causing injury to the claimant.