Allowed

Nijamudeen v. R.K.Sons

Madras HC25 Jul 2018CMA/3610/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed appeal against Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. Court set aside 50% liability deduction as appellant was a pillion rider, enhanced disability compensation component, and awarded full modified compensation of Rs. 5,32,485 with interest.

What did the court decide?

Appellant entitled to Rs. 5,32,485 with interest at 7.5% per annum to be paid by the Insurance Company.

What the court decided

AI extract

Nijamudeen Vs R.K.Sons — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2018)

¶22

According to the Petitioner/injured, while he was travelling as a pillion rider from south to north, while going near the BDO Office at Vikravandi, at 12.12.2008, the 1^st respondent Lorry which was coming in the opposite direction, dashed on the two wheeler causing him multiple injuries. The Petitioner also produced copy of the FIR as Ex.P.1 and the same is laid against the driver of the 1^st respondent Lorry only. The Tribunal, after analysing the evidence on record held that the Petitioner himself was driving the two wheeler even though in the Petition, it is stated that he travelled as a pillion rider and concluded that the Petitioner also contributed to the negligence at 50%. This the Petitioner/claimant contends is totally unwarranted conclusion without any basis to arrive at such conclusion by the Tribunal. The said contention of the Petitioner is to be accepted. In the present case on hand, the 2^nd respondent has not let in any oral or documentary evidence. The driver of the 1^st respondent Lorry has not been examined. The 2^nd respondent Insurance company has not conducted any investigation and no report prepared by the Investigating Officer of the Insurance company is produced. Thus, the evidence of P.W.1 is not contradicted in any manner by the 2^nd respondent. It is clear from Ex.P.1-FIR that the Petitioner was travelling as pillion rider. The Tribunal pointed out that in Ex.P.2-Accident Register copy, it is only stated that the Petitioner was travelling in the two wheeler which met with the accident. It is not stated specifically that he travelled as a pillion rider. While considering Ex.P.2-Accident Register and the grievous injury suffered by the Petitioner and damage caused to the two wheeler, the Tribunal concluded that only because the Petitioner was riding the two wheeler, he sustained grievous injuries. The said conclusion of the Tribunal is not sustainable for the simple reason that there is no evidence to show that the Petitioner was riding the two wheeler.

¶27

11 The Petitioner stated that he suffered multiple grievous injuries all over his body. According to P.W.1/injured, he suffered fracture in his right leg and dislocation of right hip. He further stated that there was disc bulge in L4 and L5. He undergone treatment for 20 days as inpatient in Bharani Hospital, Villupuram. Subsequently, he has taken treatment at MIOT Hospital, Chennai. P.W.2 stated that he undergone skin grafting. Further, in order to rectify the fracture suffered, the petitioner undergone bone grafting surgery thrice. To Prove the nature of injury suffered by him, the Accident Register copy issued by Government Hospital, Villupuram, is produced as Ex.P.2. Discharge summary issued by Bharani Hospital, is produced as Ex.P.3. Likewise, the Discharge summary issued by Valli Vilas Hospital, Cuddalore, and the treatment record is produced as Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.5 respectively. It is clear from the same that the Petitioner undergone treatment in the above said Valli Vilas Hospital, as inpatient. Thereafter, the Petitioner undergone hip replacement on 24.03.2010 at MIOT Hospital and the treatment and discharge summary issued by the said hospital is produced as Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.9. Thus, the Petitioner having suffered fracture and hip dislocation has undergone continuous treatment and surgery. The Petitioner to prove the disability suffered by him examined P.W.2/doctor who clearly stated about the nature of injury suffered by the Petitioner, assessed the disability of right hip at 30% and 25% spine totalling in all 60% disability. P.W.2 doctor also stated that on physical examination, he found movement of the right hip of the Petitioner is restricted and he is walking with a limp. Further the Petitioner finds difficulty in squatting and sitting on the ground. The X-ray taken by P.W.2 is produced as Ex.P.22 series and the disability certificate issued by him is marked as Ex.P.21. The Tribunal pointed out that P.W.2 has not enclosed any calculation sheet along with Ex.P.21 and also the fact no treatment was given by P.W.2 to the Petitioner. Keeping in mind the expert evidence of P.W.2 who assessed the disability at 30% for the right hip and 20% for the spine totally 50% in all and in the absence of any contra evidence let in by the 2^nd respondent and following the Ruling of this Court in 2017 (1)

¶34

Sl.No.	Heads	Amounts awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.)	Amounts awarded by this Court (Rs.)
1.	Loss of income/amenities	4,500	12,000
2.	Disability	75,000	1,00,000
3.	Transport to Hospital	3,000	3,000
4.	Extra nourishment	15,000	15,000
5.	Medical expenses	3,67,485	3,67,485
6.	Attender charges	10,000	10,000
7.	Pain and suffering	25,000	25,000

Nijamudeen v. R.K.Sons

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The National Insurance Company Vs R.Santhosh Kannan

Muniraj Vs Managing Director

Mohanapriya Vs K.Saravanakumar

Saravan Boopathi Vs Sivamurugan

Nijamudeen v. R.K.Sons

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The National Insurance Company Vs R.Santhosh Kannan

Muniraj Vs Managing Director

Mohanapriya Vs K.Saravanakumar

Saravan Boopathi Vs Sivamurugan

A compact analysis

Farouk Irani, Aged 78 Years Vs the Superintendent of Police