State of Tamil Nadu vs Annabarani and Others

P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.—This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the State against the Judgment and Decree dated 02.09.2005 made

in MACT.OP. No. 962/96 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Cum Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court No. V), Tiruppur.

Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

On 25.06.1995 at about 3.30 p.m., the deceased Ruban alias Ranganathan was riding his bicycle from west to east on the Avanashi NH 47 Main

Road. When the deceased reached in front of IOC Petrol Bunk, Avanashi, a jeep bearing Registration No. TN-07-G-0520 came from the

opposite direction and dashed against the bicycle. As a result of the accident, the deceased sustained severe head injuries and multiple injuries. The

deceased was immediately taken to the Government Head Quarters Hospital at Tiruppur, where he was treated for a day. Thereafter, he was

shifted to Sri Ramakrishna Hospital at Coimbatore and was treated for a period of six weeks and he died in the hospital. The claimants are the

wife, minor children and the parents of the deceased. The claimants claimed a compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- before the Tribunal. The State

resisted the claim. On pleading, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

a) Whether the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep belonging to the State or not?

b) Whether the claimants are entitled to claim any compensation? If so, what is the amount and from whom?

After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal was of the view that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent

driving of the jeep belonging to the State and awarded a compensation of Rs.4,56,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition.

Aggrieved by the award, the State has filed the present appeal.

Learned Counsel appearing for the State has submitted that the Tribunal is wrong in holding that the accident had occurred due to the rash and

negligent driving of the jeep belonging to the State. It is also further submitted that the deceased was drunken at the time of accident and that the

accident had occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the deceased. It is also further submitted that the Tribunal has awarded excessive

and exorbitant compensation without basis and justification and that therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law.

Learned Counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 5 / claimants has submitted that the Tribunal had considered all the relevant materials and came

to the right conclusion and awarded a just, fair and reasonable compensation. Hence the order passed by the Tribunal is in accordance with law.

Heard the counsel. On the side of the claimants, witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 were marked. On

the side of the State, witnesses R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 were marked. P.W.1 is the wife of the

deceased. P.W.2 is one Rajagopal. Ex.P1 is the attested copy of F.I.R. Ex.P2 is the attested copy of Post Mortem Certificate. Ex.P3 is the copy

of Motor Vehicle Inspector''s Report. Ex.P4 is the attested copy of the letter of the Inspector of Avanashi Police Station Inspector with regard to

Crime No. 445/95. Ex.P5 is the attested copy of the proceedings of Judicial Magistrate, Avanashi in R.C.S.40/96. Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 are the

Death Certificates. R.W.1 is one Babu who is the car mechanic. R.W.2 is one Devaraj. Ex.R1 is the attested copy of the proceedings of Judicial

Magistrate, Avanashi in R.C.S.40/96. Ex.R2 and Ex.R3 are receipts. Ex.R4 is the Settlement Letter. After considering the oral and documentary

evidence, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.4,56,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition. The details of the

compensation are as under:

Rupees

Loss of income 4,16,000/-

Loss of consortium 10,000/-

Loss of love and affection 20,000/- (for minor children)

Loss of love and affection 5,000/- (for parents)

---------

Total... 4,56,000/-

=========

The accident had occurred at about 3.30 p.m. on 25.06.1995 involving the Police Jeep bearing Registration No. TN-07-G-0520, of the

Government of Tamil Nadu. The said Police Jeep was proceeding from Salem to Coimbatore carrying the Inspector in-charge of the vehicle,

driven by armed Reserve Police constable bearing No. 2436 to attend a meeting at Police Club at Coimbatore. When the jeep was passing

Perumanallur and nearing Avinashi, the driver of the vehicle observed that the brakes of the vehicle did not function properly. After reaching

Avinashi, the vehicle was somehow stopped and the Inspector in-charge of the vehicle searched for a mechanic to attend the repairs of the brakes

and one Babu has attended on the brakes for one hour. After repairing the same, the mechanic drove the vehicle for a test run to ensure whether

the brakes were functioning properly or not. When the mechanic drove the vehicle, the accident had occurred. The F.I.R. filed for this case was

closed on the basis of mistake of facts. Further, there is no evidence produced by the appellant to prove that the accident had occurred due to the

deceased. A specific plea was raised by the appellant before the Tribunal that the accident had occurred due to the negligence on the part of the

deceased and that the deceased was under the influence of alcohol, but there is no oral or documentary evidence produced to substantiate the

same. After considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident had

occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep belonging to the State. Hence I do not find any error or illegality in the order

of the Tribunal in respect of the same. The deceased was 36 years of age at the time of accident. The claimants claimed that the deceased was

earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month and that the deceased was a skilled carpenter and contractor. Even though the claimants claimed that the

deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month, no documents were produced to substantiate the claim. In view of the same, the Tribunal fixed a sum

of Rs.3,500/- as monthly income that the deceased would have earned and calculated the annual income at Rs.40,000/-. After deducting 1/3rd of

the amount towards personal expenses of the deceased, the Tribunal arrived at a sum of Rs.26,000/- that the deceased would have contributed to

the family. After taking into consideration the age of the deceased, the Tribunal adopted 16 multiplier and determined the loss of income at

Rs.4,16,000/-. The Tribunal has taken Rs.3,500/- as the monthly income of the deceased and determined the annual income at Rs.40,000/-

instead of Rs.42,000/- (Rs.3,500/- x 12). It is an arithmetical error and hence the correct annual income should be Rs.42,000/-. After deducting

1/3rd of the amount towards personal expenses, the amount that the deceased would have contributed to the family works out to Rs.28,000/-.

Thereafter adopting 16 multiplier, the loss of income works out to Rs.4,48,000/- (Rs.28,000/- x 16). Hence the loss of income should be

Rs.4,48,000/- instead of Rs.4,16,000/- calculated by the Tribunal. There is no dispute regarding the same. Learned Counsel for the State

vehemently argued that the Tribunal ought not to have adopted the multiplier of 16. After taking into consideration of the widow and two minor

children and also the fact that the deceased was a skilled carpenter, I feel that the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of income is very

reasonable. The Tribunal has also not awarded any amount towards funeral expenses and medical expenses. The deceased was admitted to the

Government Head Quarters Hospital at Tiruppur, where he was treated for a day and then he was shifted to Sri Ramakrishna Hospital at

Coimbatore and was treated for a period of six weeks. Hence the claimants claimed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for medical expenses, Rs.15,000/-

for extra nourishment, Rs.700/- for damages to clothing, articles and bicycle. These aspects were not at all considered by the Tribunal. As the

above aspects were not considered by the Tribunal, the award amount of Rs.4,48,000/- towards loss of income is reasonable and it is therefore

confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium. The age of the widow was 27 years at the time of

accident. Taking into consideration the age of the widow, I feel that the amount awarded towards loss of consortium is very reasonable and hence

the same is confirmed. In respect of loss of love and affection, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- each to the minor children of the

deceased, aged 9 years and 5 years, which are very reasonable and hence they are also confirmed. The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of

Rs.2,500/- each to the father and mother of the deceased, towards loss of love and affection. The father and mother of the deceased are aged 60

and 57 years respectively. Taking into consideration of the same, I feel that the amounts awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of love and

affection for the father and mother of the deceased, are reasonable and hence they are confirmed. Accordingly the claimants are entitled to the

compensation awarded by the Tribunal and the details of the same are as under:

Rupees

Loss of income 4,16,000/-

Loss of income 4,48,000/-

Loss of consortium 10,000/-

Loss of love and affection 20,000/- (for minor children)

Loss of love and affection 5,000/- (for parents)

----------

Total... 4,83,000/-

==========

Thus the claimants are entitled to the correct compensation amount of Rs.4,83,000/- instead of Rs.4,56,000/- stated by the Tribunal. The interest

rate fixed by the Tribunal at 9% p.a. from the date of petition is confirmed as the same was the prevailing rate at that time. The findings given by the

Tribunal are based on valid materials and evidence and I do not find any error or infirmity in the order of the Tribunal so as to warrant interference.

Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, M.P. No. 2 of 2007 is closed. No costs.

The appellant is directed to deposit the award amount of Rs.4,83,000/-, less the amount if any already deposited, within a period of six weeks

from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the respondents 1, 4 and 5 are permitted to withdraw their respective shares

from the deposit. It is stated by the counsel appearing for the claimants that the respondents 2 and 3, who were minors at that time, have attained

majority. Hence the respondents 2 and 3 are permitted to withdraw their respective shares if they have attained majority.