K. PAZHANI Vs. L. THANGARAJ AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant herein is the Petitioner and fled the above appeal challenging the order and decree dated 20.01.2012 made in M.C.O.P.No.536 of 2009 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum II Additional Sub-Judge, Villupuram.

(2.) For convenience sake, the parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status before the Tribunal. The case of the Petitioner/injured Pazhani is that on 01.09.2008 at about 13.10 hurs, while he was riding the motor cycle bearing Reg.No.TN-32-B-1998, while he was going near More Provision Store, K.K.Road, Villupuram, the 1st respondent Lorry bearing Reg.No.TN-27-M-6487 came at high speed, driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the Petitioner's motor cycle from behind causing him multiple grievous injuries. According to the Petitioner, the accident occurred due to negligence of the 1st respondent Lorry driver only. The Petitioner was admitted in Government Hospital, Villupuram and thereafter, at MIOT Hospital, Chennai, where he was given treatment from 01.09.2008 to 17.09.2008 and again from 05.11.2008 to 27.11.2008 as inpatient. The Petitioner was aged 41 years and he was employed as Teacher in Municipal Higher Secondary School, Villupuram. Due to the injury, the Petitioner was unable to carry on his normal avocation. Hence, the Petitioner sought for a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- as compensation from the respondents.

(3.) On the other hand, opposing the claim of the Petitioner, by filing counter, the 2nd respondent/Insurance company contends that the accident does not occur in the manner alleged by the Petitioner. It was only due to negligence of the Petitioner who drove the two wheeler bearing Reg.No.TN- 32-B-1998 in a rash and negligent manner, the accident occurred. The drivers of both vehicles contributed to the accident. The claim of the Petitioner about his age, income and occupation is denied. The Petitioner has not suffered any permanent disability. The amount claimed by the Petitioner under different heads is highly excessive. The Petitioner has to prove that the 1st respondent lorry bearing Reg.No.TN-27-M-6487 was insured with the 2nd respondent. The Petitioner must also prove that the drivers of both vehicles possessed valid driving licence and there was valid permit, Registration Certificate for the 1st respondent Lorry. The claim of the Petitioner is excessive. Thus, the 2nd respondent sought for dismissal of the Petition.