SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(Mad) 1312

2011 (1) TNMAC 805
High Court of Judicature at Madras
C.S. KARNAN
The State Rep by its Commissioner of Police
Versus
R. Jegadeesan
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1643 of 2008
Decided on : 09-03-2011

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant:R. Muthaian, G.A. For the Respondent:A.A. Venkatesan, Advocate.

The court considered the claimant's sustained injuries, medical evidence, and loss of pecuniary benefits in confirming the awarded compensation.

Headnote:

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Compensation - - Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 - Rule 193 - The court discussed the responsibility for the accident, entitlement to compensation, and the quantum of compensation. The court considered the claimant's sustained injuries, medical evidence, and loss of pecuniary benefits. The court confirmed the compensation of Rs.6,65,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.

Fact of the Case:

The claimant sustained grievous injuries in a road accident while traveling in a police van. He filed a claim petition for compensation, which was awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The appellant Commissioner for Police appealed against the awarded compensation.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the claimant's injuries and medical evidence supported his inability to perform his duty as Head Constable, leading to voluntary retirement and loss of pecuniary benefits. The court confirmed the awarded compensation of Rs.6,65,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.

Issues: The issues included determining responsibility for the accident and the claimant's entitlement to compensation, as well as the quantum of compensation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the claimant's sustained injuries, medical evidence, and loss of pecuniary benefits in confirming the awarded compensation.

Final Decision: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed, confirming the award and decree passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The compensation of Rs.6,65,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum was upheld.

Judgment :-

1. The above appeal has been filed by the appellant/Commissioner for Police for State against the award and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.2207 of 2000, dated 09.01.2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal(IV Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai, awarding a compensation of Rs.6,65,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.

2. The short facts of the case are as follows:

On 02.05.1997 at about 14.00 hours while the petitioner was travelling as a passenger along with other passengers in the respondent Police Van bearing Registration No.TN 07-0920 from Madurai to Rameswaram when the van was nearing Paramakkudi, at that point of time, the driver had driven the Van in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the road side tree, resulting which, the claimant had sustained grievous injuries including bone fractures. Hence, he filed the claim petition against the respondent claiming a compensation for Rs.12,42,616/- with interest.

3. The respondent filed a counter statement and resisted the claim petition stating that the accident had not been committed by the driver of the van. The respondent further stated that the claimant has to prove his case after producing the driving licence of the driver and vehicle particulars before the Tribunal. The respondent further submitted that the claim amount is an excessive one.

4. On considering the plea of both parties the Tribunal framed two issues as follows:

"i) Who was responsible for the accident?

ii) Whether the claimant is entitled to receive compensation? If so what is the quantum of compensation?"

5. On the side of the claimant, two witnesses have been examined, viz., P.W.1, the claimant himself and P.W.2 Dr.N.Sai Chandran. Fourteen documents have been marked, namely Hospital discharge summaries, Scan report, prescription of the Doctor, Wound Certificate, Salary Certificate, Leave Certificate, Doctor's report, Doctor's Certificate, Pension particulars, Photo with negative, X-Ray, First Information Report and Disability Certificate. On the side of the respondent, no witnesses have been examined and no documents have been marked.

6. P.W.1 had adduced evidence stating that on 02.05.1997, at about 2.00 p.m., he was travelling in the Police Van bearing Registration No.TN 07-0920 from Madurai to Rameswaram. When the Van was nearing Paramakkudi, at that point of time, the driver of the Van had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the road side tree. In the result, the claimant had sustained grievous injuries including bone fractures.

7. P.W.1 further adduced evidence stating that he had sustained three bone fractures and injuries on his skull. His neck bone had also been fractured. In the spinal cord, three bones had been fractured and in his left hand, three fingers were cut off. Besides, he had sustained injuries on his left hand, left shoulder and bodily injured. Immediately after the accident, he was taken to Madurai Government Hospital, wherein he had undergone treatment as inpatient from 2.5.1997 to 13.5.1997. Thereafter, he had taken treatment at Government General Hospital, Chennai from 14.5.1997 to 9.6.1997, wherein he had undergone three surgical operations. Besides, he had taken treatment as outpatient at Vijaya Hospital, Chennai. After the accident, he was unable to do his duty as Head Constable in the respondent Department for the past four years approximately and as such, he lost his salary. P.W.1 further adduced evidence that he had taken treatment at his residence with private nursing. Due to the accident, he is unable to attend natural call.

8. P.W.2 Doctor had assessed the disability of the claimant at 80%. The claimant's both legs and both hands have become inactive. As such, the physical condition of the claimant is vigitative. P.W.1 further adduced evidence that after the accident, he is unable to perform his duty as Head Constable. Hence, he constrained to tender for voluntary retirement. For his regular retir




















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top