The court established that the petitioner suffered 100% functional disability due to negligence in a vehicular accident, warranting enhanced compensation of Rs.35,42,058.

JUDGMENT :

R.SAKTHIVEL, J.

PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, praying to set aside the Award dated October 31, 2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.7252 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court No.2, Small Causes Court, Chennai.

PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, praying to set aside the Award dated October 31, 2019 passed in M.C.O.P.No.7252 of 2016 by the Special Sub Judge – II, MCOP Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Chennai – 104.

These two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are arising out of the ‘Award dated October 31, 2019, passed in M.C.O.P.No.7252 of 2016’ ['impugned Award' for short] by the 'Special Sub Judge – II, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Chennai' ['Tribunal' for short]. The petitioner in the aforesaid Original Petition has filed C.M.A. No.1406 of 2023 seeking enhancement of compensation. The second respondent / Insurance Company has filed C.M.A. No.855 of 2022 praying to set aside the impugned Award. This Common Judgment will now dispose of both these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals.

2. For the sake of convenience, henceforth, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Petition.

PETITIONER'S CASE

3. On October 18, 2016 at about 17.00 hours, the petitioner was driving the Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-52-D-3385 carrying Cement, from Andhra Pradesh towards Kumbakonam, at Nemilicherry to Vandalur Outer Ring Road opposite to GMR Office. While so, a Tipper Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-73-F-3969, driven by its Driver in a rash and negligent manner in front of the petitioner’s Lorry, suddenly applied brakes. Consequently, the petitioner’s Lorry collied with the back of the said foregoing Tipper Lorry. In the said accident, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. The first respondent is the owner of the Tipper Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-73-F-3969 and the second respondent is the insurer of the Tipper Lorry. The petitioner is a Lorry Driver and was earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month. Hence, the petitioner filed the Original Petition seeking a compensation of Rs.80,00,000/- (Rupees Eighty Lakhs only) from the respondents.

1ST RESPONDENT'S CASE

4. The first respondent is the owner of the Tipper Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-73-F-3969. He did not appear before the Tribunal and contest the Original Petition. Hence, he was set ex-parte.

2ND RESPONDENT'S CASE

5. The second respondent – Insurance Company filed a counter merely denying all the petition averments. The Counter is nothing more than a formal denial, whereby the second respondent sought for dismissal of the Claim Petition.

EVIDENCE

6. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and one Mr.Mani, Special Sub Inspector of Police, Vellavedu Police Station was examined as P.W.2 and Ex-P.1 to Ex-P.12 were marked on the side of the petitioner. Neither any witness was examined nor any document was marked on the side of the second respondent. Disability Certificate issued by Regional Medical Board, Government Stanley Medical Hospital, Chennai was marked as Ex-C.1.

FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL

7. The Tribunal, upon hearing either side, relied on Ex-P.1 – First Information Report (FIR), Ex-P.11 - Charge Sheet, Ex-P.12 – Case Diary and the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 to conclude that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Driver of the Tipper Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-73-F-3969. Since the first respondent's Tipper Lorry was insured with the second respondent – Insurance Company and the insurance policy was in force on the date of accident, the Tribunal held that the second respondent is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner and accordingly, awarded compensation of Rs.22,90,100/- (Rupees Twenty-Two Lakhs Ninety Thousand One Hundred only). The split up figure is as follows: