(Prayer:Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order dated 07.02.2006 made in M.C.O.P.No.560 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur.)

1. The minor petitioner / second respondent has preferred the present revision against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.560 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur.

2. The short facts of the case are as follows:-

The petitioner has filed the claim in M.C.O.P.No.560 of 2003, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the respondents for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident. It was submitted that when the minor petitioner had washed her hands and was about to go to her school in order to take food at noon, the first respondents suzuki motorcycle bearing registration No.TN-48-8491, driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner sustained injuries on her legs, forehead and teeth. She was admitted at Thirukattupalli Government Hospital, wherein first aid was given and subsequently received treatment, as an inpatient, at Thanjavur Medical College Hospital. Hence, the petitioner has filed the claim against the first and second respondents, who are the owner and insurer of the motorcycle bearing registration No. TN-48-8491.

3. The second respondent, in his counter has denied the averments in the claim that the first respondents vehicle driver had a valid licence to drive it and that the vehicle was insured with this respondent at the time of accident. It was submitted that the accident was caused only due to the negligence of the minor petitioner, who had suddenly crossed the road and that the driver on seeing this, had applied brakes and that the vehicle had only lightly touched against the petitioner. It was submitted that the petitioner had sustained only simple injuries and as such, the claim was excessive.

4. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal had framed three issues for consideration in the case, viz.,

"(i) Was the accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the first respondents vehicle driver

(ii) Are the respondents liable to pay compensation to the petitioner

(iii) What is the quantum of compensation which the petitioner is entitled to get"

5. On the petitioners side, Raja, the father of the petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and six documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P6, viz., Ex.P1-copy of F.I.R., Ex.P2-copy of Motor Vehicle Inspectors report, Ex.P3-copy of accident register, Ex.P4-copy of criminal Court judgment, Ex.P5-copy of policy and Ex.P6-copy of driving licence. On the respondents side, no witness, no documents.

6. P.W.1 had adduced evidence that on 25.04.2002, at about 1 p.m., when his daughter came out of the school after eating her lunch in order to drink water, the first respondents motorcycle bearing registration No.TN-48-8491, driven in a rash and negligent manner on the Thirukattupalli-Thanjavur Road, dashed against his daughter and in support of his evidence, he had marked Exs.P1 to P6. On scrutiny of Exs.P1 and P4, it is seen that the F.I.R. has been registered against the first respondents vehicle driver and that he had admitted his guilt and paid the fine before the criminal Court. On scrutiny of Ex.P2, it is seen that the accident had not occurred due to any mechanism failure of the vehicle. Hence, the Tribunal, on scrutiny of oral and documentary evidence held that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the first respondents vehicle. The Tribunal, on scrutiny of Exs.P5 and P6, observed that the first respondents vehicle was covered under a valid policy of insurance with the second respondent at the time of accident and that the driver of the first respondents vehicle had a valid licence to drive it at the time of accident and hence, held the second respondent liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.

7. P.W.1 had further adduced evidence that due to the accident, his daughter had sustained injuries on her right forehead, right leg, right ribs and that she had received first aid at Thirukattupalli Government Hospital and subsequently received treatment at Thanjavur Medical College Hospital, as an inpatient, for six days. He deposed that his daughter experiences giddiness and loss of memory and that her vision had also been impaired.

8. The Tribunal, on scrutiny of Ex.P3, observed that the petitioner had sustained injuries on her forehead and lips and that these injuries are simple in nature. Hence, the Tribunal on considering oral and documentary evidence awarded a lump sum compensation of a sum of Rs.8,000/- as compensation under the heads of injuries, pain and suffering, transport, medical expenses, nutrition and damage to clothes and articles and directed the second respondent to pay the said sum with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim till date of payment of compensation, with costs, within eight weeks from the date of its order.

9. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the second respondent / National Insurance Company Limited, has preferred the present revision.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended in his revision that the Tribunal ought not to have fastened the liability on the insurance company since the petitioner had played fraud on the insurance company by changing driver of the insured and also the insured vehicle. It was contended that the Tribunal ought to have found that as per the original petition, the claimant was hit by a two-wheeler bearing registration No.TN48-8491, and the vehicle was identified to be a TVS suzuki motorcycle. On the other hand, the Tribunal found that in the F.I.R. on the file of Thirukattupalli Police Station filed by the father of the claimant it has been stated that the claimant was hit by a bullet motor cycle driven by a known person and that he was an eyewitness of the accident. It was contended that the Tribunal ought to have found that in the accident register extract issued by the hospital dated 25.04.2002, it is stated that the claimant was hit by an Enfield Bullet motorcycle at 1 p.m., on the date of accident. It was also contended that the Tribunal ought to have found that the Motor Vehicle Inspectors Report was furnished only after a delay of 20 days. It was contended that the Tribunal ought not to have found that the insured vehicle was actually involved in the accident and ought not to have fastened the liability on the second respondent / Insurance Company. Hence, it was prayed to set-aside the award passed by the Tribunal.

11. On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels for the petitioner and on perusing the impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the conclusions arrived at regarding negligence, liability and quantum of compensation. This Court is of the further view that as per the documentary evidence, it is seen that the rider of the motorcycle had been punished by the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvayyaru. Further, the minor claimant is aged about six years and she had sustained injuries on her legs, forehead and her teeth also had been affected. Therefore, the quantum of compensation is not on the higher side and as such, the award is confirmed. This Court directs the petitioner herein / National Insurance Company Limited, to deposit the compensation amount with interest, as fixed by the Tribunal, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. After such a deposit having been made, it is open to the father of the minor claimant to withdraw the entire compensation amount, with accrued interest thereon, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.560 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur, after filing a Memo, along with a copy of this order.

12. In the result, the above revision is dismissed. Consequently, the order and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.560 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur, dated 07.02.2006 is confirmed. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.