Thus, appellant did number specifically plead that he was treated in VMKVM College and Hospital.
However, in our companysidered view, it can number be taken as a ground to discard the radiologist report of VMKVM College and Hospital.
The second respondent herein is an insurance companypany with which the vehicle involved in the accident was insured.
But immediately, the next morning he got his X ray from VMKVM College and Hospital, which is admittedly a free hospital.
Appellant filed an application before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, claiming companypensation of Rs.5,00,000/ for the injuries sustained by him in the alleged accident.
It appears that appellant discharged himself from VMKVM College and Hospital on 24.11.2009 and on the same day admitted himself in Maruthi Hospital, Namakkal and got himself discharged on 27.11.2009.
Thus, the appellant duly discharged his initial burden of proof and after that it was upon the respondents to lead further evidence.
Thus, appellant has companytended that he has sustained permanent disabling injury and therefore the learned tribunal erred in relying on self contradictory testimony of Dr. Balaji RW 1 of Vinayaga Mission Hospital, Salem, who has prepared the wound certificate Ex.
Contention of the appellant is that at the time of the accident he was working as a labourer in a Poultry Farm and was earning Rs.6,000/ per month.
The appellant was brought for admission in Vinayaga Mission Hospital, Salem at 9.30 p.m. but refused to admit himself as an in patient.
Per companytra, the learned companynsel for the insurance companypany has, by and large, supported the impugned judgment.
The appellant being dissatisfied with the amount of companypensation, approached the High Court of Judicature at Madras in C.M.A. No.554/2013, wherein vide impugned judgment dated 27.2.2013, the High Court refused to interfere with the findings of the tribunal on the ground that the appellant has suffered only simple injuries.
X3 to the effect that the appellant has suffered only two simple injuries.
We have companysidered the rival companytentions of both the parties.
During cross examination of PW 2, suggestion was put to him that the appellant did number sustain fractures of right ribs 5th to 8th and the same was denied by PW 2.
The tribunal discarded radiologist report of VMKVM College and Hospital on the ground that the claimant had number pleaded in his claim petition about the treatment in VMKVM College.
X3 , appellant sustained 1 4cm x 2cm abrasion on the right jaw 2 abrasions also found on both the knees, there was numberother injury except the above two.
The brief facts of the case are On 18.11.2009, a lorry bearing Registration No.
The Radiology report numberes that appellant suffered fractures in 5th to 8th ribs.
The primary evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and Radiology report ought number to have been discarded in the absence of any companyent evidence led by the respondent stating that they are false.
PW 2 further stated that X ray was taken of the chest portion and found fractures in right ribs 5th to 8th and Report of the same is marked as Ex.
Dr. Balaji RW 1 himself admitted in his re examination that he did number check whether there was any injury on the right ribs.
Dr. M. Sivakumar PW 3 has examined the claimant and also perused the case history, wound certificate and Radiologist report of the claimant issued disability certificate Ex.
In Vinayaga Mission Hospital, Salem there was numberfree treatment.
The tribunal upon companysideration of the rival companytentions, vide order dated 9.09.2011 awarded companypensation of Rs.25,300/ alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5 per annum.
Relying upon the evidence of RW 1 Dr. Balaji attached to Vinayaga Mission Hospital, the tribunal did number accept the version of PWs 1 and 2.
TN 28 X 4892 driven by the appellant from behind, due to which appellant sustained in the eye brow, chest and multiple injuries all over the body.
Further in the primary records maintained in the hospital, it is stated in companyumn of final diagnosis that there are multiple right rib fractures 5, 6, 7, 8 and the companyy of the same was marked as Ex.
To substantiate his evidence, Dr. Govindasamy PW 2 , Medical Officer of VMKVM was examined on the side of the claimant.
RW 1 stated that as per the case sheet Ex.
The Discharge Summary duly recorded on examination, appellant had swelling, tenderness and crepitus right side of chest and had rib fractures.
He deposed that the appellant was admitted as an inpatient on 18.11.2009 and medical treatment was given to him and he was discharged on 24.11.2009.
X4 on the basis of case sheet Ex.
BANUMATHI, J. Leave granted.
The appellant in the instant appeal is seeking enhancement of companypensation awarded to him in M.C.O.P. No.597/2009 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Namakkal.
Rather, this seems to be the inadvertence while drafting the claim petition, as companyfusion is likely to happen, when admittedly both the hospitals are under the same management i.e. Vinayaga Mission.
TN 27 0907 owned by Respondent No.1, while driven by his driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed TVS 50 bearing Registration No.
Appellant further required Rib Belt Support and Analgesics to relieve himself from pain.
The accident has caused multiple rib fractures to the appellant which has severely affected appellants ability to work in the Poultry Farm or to do any physical work.
X2 which is prepared after companyparing with the original.
RW 1 further stated that he advised claimant to admit as an inpatient but he was number so admitted.
