MANOHAR Vs. SIVARAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is preferred by the appellant-claimant against award dated 23.03.2006 made in MCOP No.1501 of 2004 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional Sub Judge), Cuddalore.

(2.) BACKGROUND facts in a nutshell are as follows: The claimant is the injured in the motor vehicle accident that took place on 04.05.2004 at about 4.30p.m. When the appellant-claimant was walking from North to South on the extreme left, a motor cycle bearing registration No.TN-31-E-4330, which belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent, came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed against the claimant. Due to which, the claimant fell down and sustained fractures and multiple injuries all over the body. Immediately, the claimant was admitted in Valli Vilas Hospital, Cuddalore. He claimed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation. The second respondent-Insurance Company resisted the claim. On pleadings the Tribunal framed the following issues:-

(3.) HEARD the counsel. On the side of the claimant, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P13 were marked. On the side of the respondents no witness was examined and no document was marked to support their claim. P.W.1 is the claimant. PW2 is the Doctor Sivasubramaniam. Ex.P1 is the copy of the First Information Report. Ex.P2 is the copy of the Accident Register. Ex.P3 is the discharge summary. Ex.P4 is the discharge summary issued by Mahatma Gandhi Hospital. Ex.P5 is the copy of the Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report. Ex.P6 is the certified copy of the registration certificate relating to the vehicle. Ex.P7 is the copy of the Insurance policy relating to the vehicle. Ex.P8 is the copy of the driving licence. Ex.P9 is the copy of the driving licence relating to the claimant. Ex.P10 are the series of medical bills. Ex.P11 is the prescription. Ex.P12 is the wound certificate. Ex.P13 is the X-ray. After considering the 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 lorry, which belonging to the first respondent and the finding is based on valid materials and evidence.