AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C.S. Karnan, J.—The appellants/claimants have preferred the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 26.07.2006, made in
M.C.O.P. No. 5523 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Additional District and Sessions Court, Fast Track Court No.
IV), Chennai. The short facts of the case are as follows:-
The claimants, who are the brother and sister of the deceased Babuji @ Babu had filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P. No. 5523 of 2001, on the file
of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Additional District and Sessions Court, Fast Track Court No. IV), Chennai, claiming a sum of Rs.
2,00,000/- as compensation from the respondents for the death of the said Babuji @ Babu in a motor vehicle accident.
It was submitted that on 23.08.1999, at about 09.30 a.m., when the deceased Babuji @ Babu was driving a car bearing registration No. TN01
P3724, on Vikravandi South Bye-Pass Road, the first respondent''s lorry bearing registration No. TN32 A2799, which was coming in the
opposite direction, in a rash and negligent manner, had dashed against the deceased Babu''s car. As a result, he had succumbed to his injuries.
Hence, the claimants had filed the claim petition against the respondents, who are the owner and insurer of the lorry bearing registration No. TN32
A2799.
The second respondent Insurance Company had filed their counter affidavit and resisted the claim petition. They had submitted that in the said
accident, two vehicles were involved and as such the owner and insurer of the car bearing registration No. TN01 P3724 have to be added as
necessary parties. Further, the deceased did not possess a valid driving licence to drive the said car. Further, the owner of the lorry bearing
registration No. TN32 A2799, had to prove that the lorry had been insured with the Insurance Company and that the driver of the lorry had a
valid driving licence. It was submitted that the said lorry had been covered under valid F.C., permit and policy of insurance. Further, they had
denied the averments made in the claim petition regarding age, income and occupation of the deceased.
On considering the averments of both sides, the Tribunal had framed two issues namely:
i. Due to whose negligence was the accident caused? and
ii. Whether the accident had been committed by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the first respondent''s vehicle and whether the
Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation?
On the claimants'' side two witnesses were examined as P.Ws. 1 and 2 and 12 documents were marked as Exs. P1 to P12 namely FIR, charge
sheet, Judgment of criminal court, postmortem certificate, legal heir certificate, succession certificate, transfer certificate, driving licence, disability
certificate, salary certificate and ration card. On the respondents'' side no witness was examined and no document was marked.
P.W. 1 had adduced evidence that the deceased Babuji @ Babu is her blood brother and the first claimant is also her brother and that the
deceased was a driver aged about 33 years and he was earning Rs. 3,500/- per month. Both the claimants are depending upon the income of the
deceased.
P.W. 2 had adduced evidence that the deceased Babu was his driver and he had been paid a sum of Rs. 2,500/- per month as salary.
On recording the evidence of the witnesses and on scrutinizing the documents marked by the claimants and on hearing the arguments of the
learned counsels on either side, the Tribunal had granted a sum of Rs. 1,30,000/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum
from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation.
Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimants have preferred the present civil miscellaneous appeal for additional
compensation of a sum of Rs. 70,000/-.
The highly competent counsel for the claimants has submitted that the deceased''s age was 33 years and he was a driver by profession and he
was paid a sum of Rs. 3,500/- per month besides daily batta. However, the Tribunal had not granted an adequate compensation under the relevant
heads namely loss of earning, loss of love and affection, travel expenses and transport. The multiplier of 6 adopted by the Tribunal is erroneous and
instead a multiplier of 17 should have been adopted.
The learned counsel for the claimants has submitted further that the first claimant is the brother of the deceased and he is a physically
challenged person, who is depending upon the income of the deceased, who had extended all sort of support to the first claimant.
The very competent counsel for the Insurance Company has argued that in the said accident, the deceased had also contributed negligence by
driving the car in a rash manner and in causing the accident. Further, the appellants are not depending upon the income of the deceased. The
employer had adduced evidence that he had paid only a sum of Rs. 2,500/- to the deceased as monthly salary and the same had been considered
by the Tribunal, who had assessed the compensation in an appropriate manner. As such, there is no short comings in the impugned award.
On verifying the factual position of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the impugned
award of the Tribunal, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the conclusions arrived at regarding negligence and liability. However, the
quantum of compensation is on the lower side, since, it is evident that the deceased was aged only 33 years and he was a driver by profession.
Therefore, this Court is inclined to allow the above appeal and grants the appeal value amount of a sum of Rs. 70,000/- as it is found to be
appropriate in the instant case. This amount has been granted under the heads of loss of earning, loss of love and affection, funeral expenses and
transport as additional compensation. This amount will carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the
date of payment of compensation.
This Court directs the second respondent herein/Insurance Company to execute the said award by way of deposit, to the credit of M.C.O.P.
No. 5523 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Additional District and Sessions Court, Fast Track Court No. IV),
Chennai, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.
After such a deposit having been made, it is open to the claimants to withdraw the additional compensation amount, lying in the credit of
M.C.O.P. No. 5523 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Additional District and Sessions Court, Fast Track Court No.
IV), Chennai, equally among themselves, with proportionate interest thereon, after filing a memo, along with a copy of this Judgment. In the result,
this civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed and the Judgment and decree dated 26.07.2006, made in M.C.O.P. No. 5523 of 2001, on the file of the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Additional District and Sessions Court, Fast Track Court No. IV), Chennai, is set aside. No costs.