LAWS(MAD)-2012-4-284

A. SUNDARRAJAN Vs. V. SAMSON PRAKESH

Decided On April 09, 2012
A. Sundarrajan Appellant
V/S
V. Samson Prakesh Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has filed this civil miscellaneous appeal praying for enhanced compensation as against the award dated 29.12.2008 passed in MACTOP. No. 986 of 2005 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chennai (VI Small Causes Court, Chennai). The appellant/claimant has filed claim petition for compensation of Rs. 4,00,000 for injuries sustained by him by contending that on 29.8.2004 at about 17.45 hours, when he was crossing Kilpauk Garden Salai at pedestrian cross near cemetery ,the first respondent's car bearing Regn. No. TN -01 -T -3897 came along Kilpauk Garden Salai in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner and he sustained injuries and was taken to M.N.Orthopeadic Hospital, Kilpauk and then admitted to Kilpauk Medical College Hospital on 30.8.2004 and taken treatment as out -patient for injuries and due to accident, he was unable to attend any work and therefore the petitioner claimed compensation of Rs. 45,000/ - for loss of earning during treatment period, Rs. 10,000/ - as transport expenses, Rs. 10,000/ - towards extra nourishment, Rs. 2000/ - towards damage to clothing and articles, Rs. 5000/ - towards medical expenses and Rs. 10,000/ - compensation for attendants, Rs. 75,000/ - for pain and suffering, Rs. 1,00,000/ - for permanent disability and Rs. 1,43,000/ - for loss of earning power and in all, he claimed Rs. 4 lakhs from the respondents who are owner and insurer of the vehicle.

(2.) THE first respondent who is the owner of the vehicle remained exparte. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the second respondent -insurance company, denied the abovesaid contention of the petitioner regarding negligence and also stated that the claimant should prove age, occupation, monthly income, place, date and time of accident, nature of injuries, period of treatment, medical expenses, disability and the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent vehicle and also contended that the amount of compensation claimed is excessive.

(3.) ON considering the abovesaid oral and documentary evidence adduced on the side of the petitioner, the Tribunal has held that the accident has occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent driver and the second respondent -insurance company is liable to pay compensation as insurer of first respondent vehicle and also passed the total compensation of Rs. 34,000/ - as under: -