The Divisional Manager vs Thilagavathi

K.L. Manjunath, J.—Heard the counsel for the parties.

The appeal is filed by the appellant-insurance company questioning the liability and the quantum of compensation awarded by the MACT, Mysore, in MVC No. 239/2013, dated 14.08.2014.

The admitted facts in this appeal are as hereunder:

"The appellants are the legal heirs of one V.G. Vadivelan who was running a textile business in Mysore and died in a road traffic accident occurred on 1.1.2013, at about 8.45 p.m. According to the claimants, the deceased was driving his Maruthi Car bearing registration No. KA-09-N-7416 and was proceeding from Nanjangud towards Mysore. When he was near LKM Factory, K.N. Hundi Village, on Mysore - Nanjangud Main Road, from the opposite direction a bus bearing registration No. TN-47-B-9417, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the car. As a result of which, he succumbed to the injuries on the spot. According to the claimants, the deceased was aged about 44 years old. He was earning more than Rs. 50,000/- per month from the textile and insurance business."

The owner of the bus filed the written statement admitting the accident. According to him, the driver had possessed a valid driving license and the vehicle is validly insured with the appellant and therefore, the liability has to be settled by the appellant-insurance company.

The appellant-insurance company contrary to the written statement filed by the owner of the vehicle contended that the accident occurred due to sole negligence of the deceased. It was also contended that the vehicle in question did not possess valid permit to ply between Mysore and Nanjangud.

In order to prove their respective contentions, two witnesses were examined on behalf of the claimants. P.W.-1 is the widow of the deceased. The claimants relied upon Exhibits-P1 to P22. On behalf of the respondents four witnesses were examined amongst them R.W.-1 is the owner of the vehicle. The respondents produced Exhibits-R1 to R6.

The Tribunal after considering the entire evidence held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence driving of the driver of the bus and also held that the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 65,32,084/-. The judgment and award of the Tribunal is called in question by the appellant-insurance company in the present appeal.

We have heard Shri. O. Mahesh, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-insurance company and the learned counsel appearing for the claimants.

According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the petition filed by the claimants is not maintainable due to non-impleading of the owner of the maruthi car and it is also contended that the award is exorbitant and excessive.

In this case the owner of the bus has admitted the accident and he has admitted that the vehicle has been insured by the appellant-insurance company. The owner did not raise the contention of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. Whereas the insurance company is contending that the accident occurred due to sole negligence of the deceased. Alternatively, contending that due to the contrary negligence of the deceased the accident has occurred. We have seen the sketch produced by the parties. The width of the road at the spot of the accident was measuring 40 feet. The deceased was proceeding from Nanjangud towards Mysore. The accident has taken place from 8 feet away from the left side of the road and there was a width 32 feet for the bus, which was coming from the opposite direction. The middle portion of the road could be 20 feet since the width of the road was 40 feet, the driver of the bus has driven 20 feet and further 12 feet and caused the accident. The sketch produced is not disputed by the insurance company nor in the evidence of R.W.-1, the owner of the bus. Contrary to the sketch and the pleading of the owner, the insurance company is trying to contend that the accident has occurred due to negligence of the deceased. How can be there be negligence on the part of the deceased when the accident has taken place 8 feet from the left edge of the Maruthi Car? Alternatively, he contends that there is a contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The appellant counsel further contends that the finding of the Tribunal has to be reversed and the claim petition has to be dismissed on the ground that the owner of the Maruthi Car and the insurance company has not been arrayed as respondents.

The arguments advanced by the appellant''s counsel has to be brushed aside, since there is no basis for such arguments. We also cannot appreciate the arguments advanced by the appellant, which is contrary to the oral and documentary evidence. Accordingly, we hold that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus, which has been insured by the appellant

So far as the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, admittedly, the deceased was running a textile business and also doing insurance business. He was aged about 44 years. The claimants have produced the Income Tax Returns. The Income Tax Returns reveal the income of the deceased. The Tribunal considering the income after deducting the income tax rightly held that the deceased was earning an income of Rs. 4,67,186/- per annum. Since he was aged 44 years following the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, , the loss of dependency has been assessed by deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased, since he was maintaining his wife, two minor children and aged parents. In all, five dependants were depending on him and accordingly, we find no error in the quantification of compensation by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs. 1,55,000/- under the Conventional Heads and has also assigned reasoning for awarding. Viewed from any angle, we do not find any reason to entertain this appeal.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. The amount if any in deposit is ordered to be transferred to the tribunal.

The amount in deposit if any, is ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal.