NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. KANNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant is the Insurance company, who is the 3rd respondent before the Tribunal, has filed this appeal challenging the Judgment and decree dated 15.09.2012 made in M.C.O.P.No.49 of 2011 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Sub Court), Perundurai.

(2.) For convenience sake, the parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status before the Tribunal. It is a case of injury. The case of the Petitioner is that on 12.01.2011 while the petitioner was proceeding as pillion rider in the two wheeler bearing Reg.No.TN-58-Z-3623 driven by one Selvam in Madurai to Theni Main road from east to west, at about 9.45 a.m., while they were going near Chellanurani R.Kokulam Pirivu, a JCB vehicle bearing Reg.No.PY-01-Y-8860 which was stationed on the left side of the road, was suddenly moved and turned towards right side by the 1st respondent in a careless manner without caring for the oncoming vehicles. Due to the said sudden act of the 1st respondent, the bucket in front of the JCB hit the Petitioner due to which he fell down on the road. The accident occurred only due to negligence of the 1st respondent. The Petitioner suffered bone fracture as well as multiple grievous injuries. After taking first aid in a private hospital at Kokulam, the petitioner was taken to Government Hospital, Madurai and then to Coimbatore Medical Hospital at Coimbatore, where he was given treatment as inpatient for one month. The Petitioner suffered grievous injuries; bone fracture at left leg, multiple bone fracture of left knee and injury in eyebrow. According to the Petitioner, he could not move around and carry on his business due to the injury suffered by him. The Petitioner is stated to be aged 40 years, working as Commission Agent and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. The Petitioner sought for Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation from the respondents.

(3.) On the other hand, opposing the claim of the Petitioner, by filing counter, the 3rd respondent/Insurance company contends that the accident does not occur in the manner alleged by the Petitioner. The claim of the Petitioner about his age, avocation and income is to be proved by him. The accident occurred only due to negligence of the Petitioner. The claim of the Petitioner is highly excessive. The 3rd respondent sought for dismissal of the Petition.