R. Pongiappan, J. - (1.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Appellant/ Insurance Company challenging the Judgment and degree dated 24.11.2010 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal /Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam. In the Claim Tribunal, the 1st respondent in this appeal is the claimant and the 2nd respondent is the 1st respondent, who is the owner of the offending vehicle. Further, the appellant herein is the 2nd respondent/insurer. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status before the Tribunal. This is the case of injury.
(2.) In the claim Tribunal, the case of the petitioner is as follows. 2.1. On 03.08.2008 at about 5.00 pm, when the injured was riding the Bicycle in east west road near Old Matha Theatre, a Car bearing Reg.No.TN 55 R 2562 owned by the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent came in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the claimant. Due to the said accident the petitioner sustained multiple fractures all over the body. She sustained fracture on her left foot, right hand and stomach. After the accident, she was admitted in Government Hospital, Nagapattinam and thereafter she took further treatment from 03.08.2008 to 25.08.2008 as inpatient at Thanjavur Medical College Hospital. During the time of the treatment, an operation was performed in her left leg. At the time of accident, she studied 12th standard and her age was 17 years. In the claim Tribunal, on behalf of the injured claim application was filed by her father and prayed for the compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- towards injuries sustained by the petitioner in the accident.
(3.) On the other hand, opposing the claim of the petitioner by filing the counter, the 2nd respondent Insurance Company denied the accident and contended that the accident was happened only due to the rash and negligent act of the injured. It was further contended on the side of the Insurance Company that during the time of accident, the driver of the 1st respondent vehicle is not possessed with valid Driving License and thereby the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the injured. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner was examined as PW 1, the doctor who issued the Disability Certificate to the petitioner was examined as PW 2. Further on the side of the petitioner, 19 documents were exhibted as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.19.;