THANGAVEL Vs. K GUNASEKARAN AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/petitioner has preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation as against the award dated 27.8.2004 passed in MCOP.No.132 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (1st Addl. Sub Judge), Erode.

(2.) The appellant/claimant has filed claim petition for compensation of Rs.10 lakhs for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident occurred on 13.7.2002. Briefly, the case of the appellant/petitioner is that on 13.7.2002, at about 9.15 pm, when the petitioner and his friend Joseph were standing in front of Annamar Petrol bunk on the extreme western side of the north south Poondurai Road, a lorry bearing Regn.No.45-Z-3297, driven by its driver from south to north direction in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, lost control and deviated towards left side of the road and knocked down the petitioner and he was dragged along with the lorry and finally halted after hitting the compound wall of a burial ground and the petitioner has sustained severe crush injury and multiple fractures on the left thigh and multiple injuries all over the body and he was taken treatment as inpatient at Lotus Apollo Hospital, Erode from 13.7.2002 to 17.7.2002 and also at Erode Government Hospital and was shifted to JPR Clinic and underwent treatment till the time of filing the petition and he sustained permanent disability and the accident was occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the first respondent herein, who is the driver of the 2nd respondent's lorry and the third respondent is the insurer of the above said lorry. At the time of accident, the age of the petitioner was 35 years and he was proprietor of Meenakshi Bala Machine Pattarai and was earning Rs.8000/- p.m and the accident was occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the the driver of the 2nd respondent's lorry and therefore the 2nd respondent who is the owner of the lorry and 3rd respondent-insurance company are liable to pay Rs.10 lakhs as compensation.

(3.) The first respondent, driver of the lorry and the 2nd respondent, owner of the lorry, remained exparte before the Tribunal. On the side of the 3rd respondent-insurance company filed counter, in which, it is stated that the owner and driver of the lorry have not informed the alleged accident to the 3rd respondent and hence they contravened the conditions of insurance policy and further the petitioner should prove the alleged accident involving the lorry and its driver. It is further stated that the petitioner should prove the alleged multiple major injuries all over the body, medical expenses, treatment taken, disability by reliable oral and documentary evidence. It is also stated that the accident was not occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent, driver of the lorry and the amount of compensation claimed is excessive.