K. MUNUSWAMI GOUNDAR Vs. PERUMAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second respondent in O.P. Nos. 23 and 24 of 1971 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Judge), Tiruchirappalli, is the appellant in both these appeals. There are two appeals because there were two persons in respect of whom compensation was claimed under the provisions of the relevant Act in two separate petitions.

(2.) On 30th November, 1969, at about 1 P.M. the first respondent was driving lorry No. MDS. 8097 in Annavasal -Kudumiamalai Road. The lorry capsized and Perumal, the petitioner in O.P. No. 23 of 1971 sustained multiple injuries to his person and fracture of his right hand and left leg. He was removed to the Town Government Hospital, Pudukottai, and thereafter was admitted in the Government Headquarters Hospital, Tiruchirappalli, for further treatment. He was permanently disabled partially. He is a married person and is one of the earning members of the family consisting of himself, his parents, brothers and sisters. At the time of the accident, he was about twenty -five years of age, and he claimed to be healthy and hard -working earning a sum of Rs. 6 per day. According to him, it was due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the first respondent that the lorry capsized resulting in the petitioner sustaining injuries and fracture, His further case was that as a result of the accident and the fracture sustained by him, he was unable to work and earn as usual. He impleaded the driver Venkatachalam, the owner and the insurance company as the respondents and claimed Rs. 15,000 as compensation.

(3.) In the other O.P., the petitioner is one Ramaswami. He had a son by name Subbiah, aged about twenty years. Subbiah was travelling in the same vehicle on that fateful day, and in the accident, he sustained multiple injuries as a result of which he died. It was claimed that the deceased was earning about Rs. 150 per mensem and as a result of the death, the members of the family were suffering mental agony and loss of earnings. It was contended that the accident was solely due to the rash and negligent act of the first respondent. A compensation of Rs. 10,000 was claimed.