M JEYARAJ Vs. A GOVINDA NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/claimant has filed this appeal against the decree and judgment dated 04.10.2017 made in M.C.O.P.No.406 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III Additional District Judge, Poonammallee, Tiruvallur District.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status before the Tribunal. The case of the petitioner/claimant is that on 16.05.2014 at about 11.00a.m., while the petitioner/claimant was travelling in a car bearing Registration No.TN-07-U-1881 in Mangadu to Kundrathur Road while going near Kozhumanivakkam bus stop, the driver of the car drove the vehicle at high speed, lost his control and dashed against a private bus, which was standing in the said bus stop. The accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of the said car in which the petitioner/claimant was proceeding. In the accident, the petitioner/claimant suffered severe head injury, left frontal SDH, Penumocephalus with Pan Facial Bone Fractures and injuries all over the body. At that point of time, the petitioner/claimant was a college student and was doing Engineering course. Due to the injury suffered, he is not able to carry on day to day normal activities. Thus, the petitioner/claimant sought for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- as compensation from the respondents who are the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.

(3.) On the other hand, opposing the claim of the petitioner/claimant, by filing counter, the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company contends that the accident did not occur in the manner alleged by the petitioner/claimant. There was no mistake or negligence on the part of the car driver and it was only due to sudden stopping of the private bus without any warning signal, the car driver dashed on the back of the private bus, resulting in the accident. As such, the respondents are not liable to pay any compensation. The claim of the petitioner/claimant about the nature of injury sustained and consequential suffering undergone by him is disputed. The claim of the petitioner/claimant is exorbitant. Thus, the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company sought for dismissal of the petition.