- (1.) THE 1st respondent/claimant had filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.802 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli, for claiming compensation a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- with interest stating that on 15.10.2002, at about 06.00 p.m., when the claimant was travelling in the Jeep bearing registration No.TKL-10A-1428, on the Bodinayakanoor to Munar main road, along with her son, the driver of the jeep had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner in order to overtake a bus and dashed against an electric post. In the impact, the claimant had sustained multiple bone fracture injuries. Hence, the claimant had filed the said claim against the respondents.
(2.) THE 2nd respondent/National Insurance Company had filed a counter statement and denied the occurrence of the accident. It was submitted that while the claimant was travelling in the Jeep, she had stretched her hand outside the window. At that time, the RMTC bus which was trying to overtake the jeep had dashed against the arm of the claimant. As such the owner of the bus and its insurer are necessary parties in the claim case and they are liable to pay compensation. Further it was submitted that the capacity of the Jeep was only 10 persons but the entire family members had travelled in the jeep. The respondent had denied the averments in the claim regarding nature of injuries, mode of treatment and medical expenses etc. The respondent had further stated in their additional counter that the driver of the jeep did not have a driving licence and that the driver had unambiguously admitted the same. Hence, he was punished by the Judicial Magistrate. As such, the same ground had been established on the file of the Judicial Magistrate. Hence, the 1st respondent, who is the owner of the vehicle is liable to pay compensation. After considering the averments of both parties, the Tribunal had framed two issues namely: (1) Did the 1st respondent's driver, committed the accident due to his rash and negligent driving?; (2) Whether the claimant is entitled to receive compensation?
(3.) ON the side of the claimants, two witnesses had been examined namely the claimant and doctor and eleven documents were marked namely: Ex.P1-F.I.R; Ex.P2-wound certificate; Ex.P3-judgment copy; Ex.P4-Hospital admission record; Ex.P5-discharge summary; Ex.P6-medical bills; Ex.P7-case sheet; Ex.P8-identification card; Ex.P9-salary certificate; Ex.P10-x ray and Ex.P11-disability certificate. On the side of the respondent, one Marimuthu Arulsami was examined and four documents were marked namely: Copy of Policy; Copy of office notice; Acknowledgment card and copy of notice etc.;