CoramThe Honourable Mr v. V. Parthasarathy2.New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,III Party Claims, Moore Street,Chennai-1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 31-8-2007CoramThe Honourable Mr.Justice N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMARC.M.A.No.2027 of 2000RM. Arunachalam...Appellant/PetitionerVs.1.V. Parthasarathy2.New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,III Party Claims, Moore Street,Chennai-1....Respondents/RespondentsThis Civil Miscellaneous Appeal u/s 173 of MV Act is preferredagainst the order dated 7.3.2000 made in M.C.O.P.No.2123 of 1998 on thefile of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Judge, Court of SmallCauses), Chennai.For Appellant:Mr.M.SathyanarayananFor 1st Respondent:No appearanceFor 2nd Respondent:Mr.S.JayasankarJ U D G M E N TThis Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred by the Claimant inM.C.O.P.No.2123 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(II Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai, challenging the order ofdismissal dated 7.3.2000.2.The case of the appellant/claimant is that on 10.4.1996 at about10.00 p.m. when he was returning to his house from office in his motorbike bearing registration No.TN-02-A-6282 in the third main road, AmbatturEstate, a lorry bearing registration No.TSA 4327 driven by its driver in arash and negligent manner, came in a high speed and hit against him and hewas thrown out from the motor bike. In the said accident, the appellant/claimant sustained grievous injuries and fractures and he was hospitalisedfor ten days and was bed-ridden for about six months. For the injuries https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and disability sustained, medical expenses incurred, etc., the appellantapproached the Tribunal claiming Rs.1,98,500/- from the owner of thelorry/first respondent and the Insurance Company/second respondent withwhom the lorry was insured. 3.The second respondent/Insurance Company filed counter affidavitcontending that the Police records show that the injured person was oneL.Arun, Son of Lakshmanan and the appellant/claimant was not the injuredperson and therefore the appellant/claimant has to prove that actually heis the injured person and is entitled to claim compensation.4.The appellant/claimant was examined as PW-1. He produced Ex.P-2Discharge summary to show that the name of the person admitted immediatelyafter the accident in KHM Hospital, Annanagar, Chennai-40 is Arunachalamand the date of admission is 10.4.1996 and the date of discharge is22.4.1996. In the said document it is stated that the patient was hit bylorry at 10.15 p.m. at Ambattur Estate near IMS Hospital. In Ex.P-2 withregard to the injuries it is stated as follows:"WOUND INSPECTION & DEBRIDEMENTUnder GA the entire knee was opened out, patellafragmented cruciate torn with wound contamination.Thorough debridement and excision of the fragmentedpatella done and quadiceps mechanism was lessconsnicted & reparied.Fracture both bone's leg (Right) aligned andcalcanicern pin traction applied. Wounds approximatedwithout tension.IV FluidsInj. Orizolin IVInj. Metrogyl IVInj. Amikacin IVInj. Voveran IMFRACTURE BB RIGHT LEG ORIF DONEInj. Supacef IVInj. Amikacin IV bdT. Chymoral forte tds"The medical bills are marked as Ex.P-3 series, which also contain the nameof the appellant/claimant. The claimant was on leave from 10.4.1996 to14.10.1996 due to the accident as could be seen from Ex.P-4 Loss of Paycertificate issued by the Employer of the appellant/claimant. Ex.P-5Disability certificate fixing the disability as 60% is also issued in thename of 'RM.Arunachalam, son of Ramanathan'. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5.The Tribunal, without appreciating Ex.P-2 Discharge Summary,Ex.P-3 series Medical Bills, Ex.P-4 Loss of Pay Certificate, and Ex.P-5Disability Certificate produced by the appellant/claimant, solely reliedon the FIR and Charge sheet, where the name of the victim is shown as Arunand dismissed the claim petition as against which the present appeal isfiled.6.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that theaccident had taken place on 10.4.1996 at 10.00 p.m. in the third mainRoad, Ambattur Estate when the lorry bearing registration No.TSA 4327 hitagainst the appellant/claimant and the driver of the lorry was foundguilty by the criminal Court and that the alleged Arun, whose name findsplace as victim in the FIR having not claimed any compensation, theappellant/claimant is the real and only victim and therefore the Tribunalwas not right in relying on the police version to deny compensation. Thelearned counsel further submitted that the accident having been admittedand the appellant having proved the injuries due to the said accident byproducing Ex.P-2 to P-6, the Tribunal was not justified in disbelievingthe same and ought not to have dismissed the claim petition.7.The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent on theother hand contended that the criminal court records disclose the name ofthe injured person as Arun and not the name of the appellant/claimant andtherefore the rejection of claim petition filed by the appellant/claimantis just and proper.8.I have considered the rival submissions made by the learnedcounsel appearing for the appellant/claimant as well as the secondrespondent.9.The accident that took place between the motor bike bearingregistration No.TN-02-A-6282 and Lorry bearing registrtion No.TSA 4327 on10.4.1996 in Ambattur Estate at 10.00 p.m. is not disputed. Merelybecause the FIR contain the name of one Arun as victim, the claim of theappellant cannot be denied in view of the fact that immediately after theaccident, the appellant/claimant was admitted in KHM hospital, Annanagar,Chennai-40, at 10.15 p.m. and was treated as inpatient from 10.4.1996 to22.4.1996, which is proved through Ex.P-2. Ex.P-3 series medical bills,Ex.P-5 Disability certificate issued by the Doctor of Government StanleyHospital, Chennai, also contain the name of the appellant only. Merelybecause the name of the injured person was not correctly disclosed in thecriminal case records, the claim of the appellant cannot be rejected,particularly when the accident is proved by way of admission of guilty bythe driver of the lorry and no person other than the appellant/claimantfiled any claim petition claiming compensation. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

10.The informant to the police viz., Anandan was examined as PW-2.In his evidence PW-2 deposed that the appellant is known to him and he wasthe injured person in the accident that took place on 10.4.1996; in hishouse the appellant is called as 'Arun'; he also used to call him as'Arun' and therefore he has given the name of the injured person as 'Arun'in the complaint. PW-2 also states that he only admitted the appellant inthe hospital by hiring a van. The criminal Court or the Police have nochance to verify as to whether the said Arun is a different person as thedriver of the lorry admitted his guilt and paid the fine amount. Had thecriminal court gone into the merits of the case, one can take a view thatthe appellant's name differs from the name of the injured person in theFIR. The very same informant/PW-2 having stated that the appellant is theinjured person, no different view is possible. The motor bike involved inthe accident is also one and the same i.e, Yamaha motor bike bearingregistration No.TN-02-A-6282. Hence I am of the view that theappellant/claimant is entitled to get compensation and the secondrespondent being the Insurance Company, is bound to pay the compensation.11.Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, theappellant/claimant was admitted as inpatient in KHM Hospital, Annanagar,Chennai from 10.4.1996 to 22.4.1996 and there is fracture in both thebones in the right leg. The appellant also produced Ex.P-4 Loss of paycertificate from the Employer for about six months disclosing his salaryas Rs.3,287.50. The disability assessed was 60%. The appellant alsoproduced Ex.P-3 series Medical bills. Hence I am of the view that theappellant can be awarded compensation under the following heads:Medical Expenses...Rs. 5,000/-60% Disability...Rs. 60,000/-Loss of income during treatmentfor six months @ Rs.3,287.50 p.m....Rs. 19,725/-Pain and Suffering...Rs. 10,000/-Transportation...Rs. 2,500/-Extra Nourishment...Rs. 2,775/------------------Total...Rs.1,00,000/------------------12.Thus, the appellant/claimant is entitled to a total compensationof Rs.1,00,000/- with 7.5 % interest from the date of the claim petition.The second respondent is directed to deposit the said amount within aperiod of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and onsuch deposit, the appellant/claimant is permitted the withdraw the same. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part with the abovedirections. No costs. vrSd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1.The II Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai. 2. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Chennai.+ One cc to Mr. M. Sathyanarayanan, Advocate sR 54456+ One cc to Mr. S. Jayasankar, Advocate SR 54598BV (co)sg 10/9/07Judgment in C.M.A.No.2027 of 2000 31-8-2007