Tribunal awards damages more than what the victim sought

Chennai

S Ruban Raj (26), a senior insurance executive, was travelling in his bike when a private engineering college bus rammed his vehicle from behind near Ramapuram on February 29, 2016. The petition was filed under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 3 of MACT claiming compensation of Rs 14 Lakhs for the injuries he sustained in the road accident.

According to the petitioner, he was riding his bike towards Ramapuram in Thiruvalluvar Salai when a bus drove in a rash and negligent manner rammed his vehicle, leaving him with grievous injuries.

He claimed in the petition that the bus and the insurer of the vehicle, United India Insurance Co Ltd, were jointly and statutorily liable to pay the compensation.

Ruban also submitted the disability certificate issued by Regional Medical Board, which fixed the disability as 50 per cent.

However, United India Insurance contended that the accident happened due to the rash and negligent act of the petitioner, and argued that contributory negligence has to be fixed. “The compensation claimed, in any event, is highly speculative, excessive, inflated and baseless and the same ought not to be allowed,” it said in the counter.

But the tribunal accepted the disability certificate and fixed his functional disability at 40 per cent. Recording the submissions, Judge V Sutha said, “After perusing the accident charge sheet, it is seen that the bus driver was responsible for the accident.”

After calculating the loss of Ruban’s future earnings, pain and sufferings, extra nourishment and medical expenses among other things, the tribunal directed the insurance firm to pay Rs 18,82,000 with interest rate at 7.5 per cent per annum. The company was asked to deposit the compensation amount with the tribunal’s bank account within two months.