A KARTHIKEYAN Vs. V MANIVANNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the petitioner/claimant, against the judgment and decree dated 17.07.2012 passed in M.C.O.P.No.68 of 2011, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Perundurai, Erode District.

(2.) For convenience sake, the parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status before the Tribunal. The case of the claimant before the Tribunal as per his claim petition is that on 19.01.2011, when the petitioner was going towards west by riding his TVS XL Motor Cycle bearing Reg.No.TN 56 A 8805 in Perundurai - Erode east west road, at about 3.30 p.m, the lorry bearing Reg.No.TN 34 C 7282 came in the opposite direction at high speed and without observing traffic rules, dashed against the two wheeler of the petitioner, causing grievous injuries in head and left leg of the petitioner. The accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. The petitioner was aged about 27 years and was employed as Assistant Technician in a private industry and earning monthly salary of Rs.9,000.00. The petitioner due to the injuries suffered by him, is unable to move freely and that his earning capacity was affected. He was without any income for more than one year due to his inability to attend any work. Hence the petitioner seeks a sum of 3.00 lakhs as compensation from the respondents, who are the driver/owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.

(3.) On the other hand, opposing the claim of the petitioner, by filing counter, the third respondent/Insurance Company, contended that the negligence of the petitioner alone caused accident and it is incorrect to allege that the first respondent/lorry driver came at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and caused accident. The lorry driver was coming at normal speed in the East West main road and at that time, the petitioner crossed the road suddenly from south to north without noticing the lorry, resulting in the accident. The petitioner contributed to the occurrence and as such he is not eligible for any compensation. The tribunal has to assess the petitioner's disability, income and other factors properly. Thus, the third respondent contended that the claim of the petitioner was legally unsustainable and the same is liable to be rejected.