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 18.02.2008, made in M.C.O.P. No. 2009 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Small Causes Court No. IV at Chennai. The short facts of the case are as follows:-
Originally, one Mrs. A. Lakshmi had filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P. No. 2009 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Small Causes Court No. IV at Chennai, claiming a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- as compensation from the respondents for the injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident.
It was submitted that on 24.01.2003, at about 09.00 hours when the said Lakshmi was crossing Kodambakkam High Road, opposite to Palmgrove Hotel, the first respondent''s motorcycle bearing registration No. TN02 P0792, came in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the said Lakshmi. As a result, she had sustained grievous injuries. Hence, she had filed the claim petition against the respondents, who are the owner and insurer of the motorcycle bearing registration No. TN02 P0792.
The second respondent Insurance Company had filed their counter affidavit and denied the averments made in the claim petition regarding place, date and time of accident, age, income and avocation of the original claimant, as well as the alleged injuries, period of treatment, expenses incurred and disability. It was submitted that the original claimant had to prove that the first respondent''s motorcycle was insured with them i.e., second respondent Insurance Company at the time of accident. It was submitted that there was a delay of 36 days in filing FIR. It was submitted that the rider of the motorcycle did not have a valid licence to drive it at the time of accident. It was submitted that the accident had been caused by the negligence of the original claimant and not due to any negligence on the part of the rider of the first respondent''s motorcycle. Further, it was submitted that the claim was excessive.
During the pendency of the claim petition, the original claimant Mrs. A. Lakshmi died on 31.10.2003. Hence, the second and third claimants, who are the legal heirs of the original claimant were impleaded.
On considering the averments of both sides, the Tribunal had framed four issues namely:
i. Whether the accident happened due to the rash and negligence riding by the rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No. TN02 P0792?
ii. Whether the respondents are liable to pay compensation?
iii. Whether the claimants are entitled to get compensation? and
iv. To what other relief are the claimants entitled to get?
On the claimants'' side two witnesses were examined as P.Ws. 1 and 2 and nine documents were marked as Exs. P1 to P9 namely copy of FIR, copy of plan, charge sheet, O.P. Chit, Puthur Chit, medical report, death and legal heir certificates and medical bills. On the respondents'' side no witness was let in and no document was marked.
P.W. 2 had adduced evidence which is corroborative of the statements made in the claim regarding manner of accident. The Tribunal, on scrutiny of Exs. P1 to P3 had observed that FIR and charge sheet had been filed against the rider of the first respondent''s motorcycle bearing registration No. TN02 P0792 and that the motorcyclist was solely responsible for the accident. The Tribunal further observed that neither the motorcyclist nor the owner of the motorcycle entered appearance before the Court to give evidence. 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 rider of the first respondent''s motorcycle and hence held that the second respondent Insurance Company liable to pay compensation to the claimants.
On scrutiny of Ex. P7, it is seen that the original claimant expired on 31.10.2003. On scrutiny of Ex. P8, it is seen that the claimants are the legal heirs of the deceased.
P.W. 2 had further adduced evidence that the original claimant was a ''Chittal'' in building work and earning Rs. 1,800/- per month. On scrutiny of Ex. P4, it is seen that the original claimant had sustained a punctured wound in the tibia bone of the right leg and the Doctors had advised ORIF treatment for stabilization of tibia bone, but she was not willing for the same and therefore AK slab was applied for her. Ex. P5 shows that she had taken treatment at Puthur till March. The Tribunal, on observing that this would have prevented her from getting on with her normal work for three months, awarded a sum of Rs. 5,400/- under the head of loss of income for three months, Rs. 1,000/- was awarded for transport expenses, Rs. 1,000/- was awarded under the head of nutrition, Rs. 300/- was awarded for damage to clothes and articles, Rs. 70.02 was awarded for medical expenses as per Ex. P9, Rs. 5,000/- was awarded towards pain and suffering. In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 12,800/- as compensation to the claimants and directed the respondents to jointly and severally deposit the said sum together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim till the date of payment of compensation/excluding the period of dismissal for default, if any, with costs, within a period of one month from the date of it''s order.
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. 50,000/-.
The highly competent counsel for the claimants has contended in the appeal that the Tribunal failed to see that at least no fault liability of Rs. 25,000/- has to be paid for the grievous injuries sustained by the deceased due to the accident and that his is a statutory liability and cannot be avoided simply because the injured had died subsequently. It was contended that the Tribunal failed to see that the amount of compensation under various heads must be liberal and should not be niggardly. Hence, it is prayed for grant of additional compensation of Rs. 50,000/-.
The learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has vehemently argued that the accident took place on 24.01.2003 and the original claimant expired on 31.10.2003 i.e., after nine months from the date of accident. Further, there is no nexus to show that the injuries sustained by her in the accident led to her death. Further, she had undergone treatment only as an outpatient at P.R.S. Hospital and to prove the same the claimants had marked Exs. P4 O.P. Chit. However, the Tribunal had granted an adequate compensation to the claimants. Therefore, the above appeal is not maintainable.
Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that the injured underwent treatment at Puthur continuously for a period of three months and as such transport expenses and attender charges have also to be taken into account for assessment of compensation. The case had been established against the Insurance Company, but adequate compensation had not been granted.
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 adequate compensation had not been granted to the claimants and therefore, this Court is inclined to grant additional compensation of a sum of Rs. 10,000/- under the head of transport expenses, Rs. 15,000/- under the head of attender charges and Rs. 5,000/- under the head of medical expenses. In total, this Court awards a sum of Rs. 30,000/- as additional compensation to the claimants as it is found to be appropriate in the instant case. 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 depositing to the credit of M.C.O.P. No. 2009 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Small Causes Court No. IV at 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 said compensation amount, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P. No. 2009 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Small Causes Court No. IV at 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 partly allowed and the Judgment and decree dated 18.02.2008, made in M.C.O.P. No. 2009 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Small Causes Court No. IV at Chennai, is modified. No costs.