NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. MUTHUKANNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMMON Judgment: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed by the appellant-Insurance Company against the Award and Decree made in MCOP Nos. 675, 676, 677 of 2000 dated 15.03.2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub-Judge), Namakkal. These appeals arising out of a common accident, so they have been taken up together and a common judgment is passed.

(2.) BACKGROUND facts in a nutshell are as follows:-

(3.) HEARD the counsel. On the side of the claimants, P.W.1 to P.W.4 were examined and documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P13 were marked. On the side of the appellant/Insurance Company, no witness was examined and no documents were marked to support their claim. Witnesses P.W.1 is the claimant in CMA No.641 of 2003. P.W.2 is the claimant in CMA No.639 of 2003. P.W.3 is the claimant in CMA No.640 of 2003. P.W.4 is the Doctor Kathiravan. Ex.P1 is the copy of the First Information Report. Ex.P2 is the copy of Wound Certificate issued to the claimant in MCOP No.677 of 2000 (CMA No.641 of 2003). Ex.P3 is the Medical Bill issued to the claimant in MCOP No.677 of 2000 (CMA No.641 of 2003). Ex.P4 is the X-ray. Ex.P5 is the copy of Wound Certificate issued to the claimant in MCOP No.675 of 2000 (CMA No.639 of 2003). Ex.P6 is the Medical Bill issued to the claimant in MCOP No.675 of 2000 (CMA No.639 of 2003). Ex.P.7 is the X.ray. Ex.P8 is the copy of Wound Certificate issued to the claimant in MCOP No.676 of 2000 (CMA No.640 of 2003). Ex.P9 is the Medical Bill issued to the claimant in MCOP No.676 of 2000 (CMA No.640 of 2003). Ex.P10 is the X-ray. Ex.P11 is the copy of Disability Certificate issued to the claimant in MCOP No.677 of 2000 (CMA No.641 of 2003). Ex.P12 is the copy of Disability Certificate issued to the claimant in MCOP No.675 of 2000 (CMA No.639 of 2003). Ex.P13 is the copy of Disability Certificate issued to the claimant in MCOP No.676 of 2000 (CMA No.640 of 2003). In the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, it is clearly stated that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the Jeep driver. After considering the above oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal had given a categorical finding that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Jeep and the findings of the Tribunal are based on valid materials and evidence.