ARUMUGAM Vs. ASHOK B. LAVAAND AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation of Rs.5,32,525.00 awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant has filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

(2.) Brief facts are that on 20/11/2011 at about 7.00 P.M., the appellant was driving his TVS motorcycle bearing registration No.TN29 AJ 8138 on Bommidi Pappireddipatti Main road and when he was nearing Lurdupuram timber mark, a Tata lorry bearing registration No.KA-22 D 2757 owned by the first respondent and insured with the second respondent driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the appellant. Due to the impact, the appellant sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately, after the accident, he was admitted in Government Hospital, Dharmapuri and thereafter, admitted at Ganga Hospital, Coimbatore where he had taken treatment for 20 days. Regarding the accident, a criminal case in Crime No.444 of 2011 was registered by Bommidi Police Station under Sec. 279 and 337 IPC against the driver of the lorry. At the time of accident, the appellant was working as Forest Watcher in Tamil Nadu Forest Department and was earning Rs.10,000.00 per month. Stating that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry, the appellant has filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000.00.

(3.) Resisting the claim petition, the second respondent filed counter stating that the driver of the lorry drove the same with all due care and caution following the traffic rules. It is the appellant who drove his vehicle rashly and negligently without observing traffic rules came from the opposite direction and caused the accident. Since the accident occurred due to the act of the rider of the motorcycle, the driver of the lorry was not at all responsible for the alleged accident. Therefore, the claim by the appellant against the second respondent is untenable. It is stated that the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.KA 22D 2757 drove the same without driving licence and the owner of the lorry committed breach by permitting a unlicensed driver to drove the vehicle on the date of the alleged accident. If any compensation is awarded, it is only the first respondent, owner of the vehicle, who is liable to pay the same.