AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.—These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed by the Insurance Company against the award and decree dated
17.6.2003 made in MCOP No. 37 of 1999, against the award and decree dated 21.8.2003 made in MCOP No. 534 of 2003, against the
common award and decree dated 21.8.2003 made in MCOP Nos. 536 and 539 of 2003, against the common award and decree dated
17.6.2003 made in MCOP Nos. 368 and 369 of 1997, against the award and decree dated 16.6.2003 made in MCOP No. 85 of 1998, against
the common award and decree dated 17.6.2003 made in MCOP Nos. 197 of 1998, 215 of 1998 and 227 of 1998, against the award and
decree dated 17.6.2003 made in MCOP No. 228 of 1998 and against the award and decree dated 21.8.2003 made in MCOP No. 540 of
2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (III Additional District Judge), Pondicherry.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
These appeals are arising out of a common accident. There were 81 passengers travelling in a bus bearing Registration No. TAU 9515 belonging
to one Prabhu, who is one of the respondents in all these appeals, from Kodaikanal Hill to Palani on 02.05.1997 at about 12.30 p.m. When the
bus was going between B.L. Shed and North Kavounchi, the driver drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner. At that time, a vehicle came
from the opposite direction towards Kodaikanal and in order to give way for that vehicle, the driver moved the bus towards left side and the earth
near the front wheel caved in, resulting in the bus getting tilted and falling into a deep trench. Due to the accident, some of the passengers were
killed and some of them sustained grievous injuries. The claimants in the respective claim petitions claimed compensation. The said bus was insured
with the appellant / Insurance Company, who resisted the claims. On pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues in all the cases:
a) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus belonging to one Prabhu, driven by its driver?
b) Whether the driver of the offending bus was having proper driving licence to drive the same and whether the said bus was covered by proper
documents as contemplated under the M.V. Act?
c) Whether the claimants are entitled for any compensation? If so, what is the amount and from whom?
After considering the materials and evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to one Prabhu and awarded compensation. Aggrieved by the award amounts, the Insurance
Company has filed the present appeals.
Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant / Insurance Company submitted that there is no proof that all the passengers have travelled in the
bus belonging to one Prabhu. There were 81 passengers in the bus. It was overloaded. The seating capacity of the bus is only 57 + 2. Under such
circumstances, there has been a gross violation of policy as well as violation of the Registration Certificate and permit conditions. Therefore the
Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation only for the permissible limit of 57+2 passengers and since the bus was overloaded, the
Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. Counsel for the appellant alternatively submitted that the Tribunal has awarded
excessive and exorbitant compensation, without basis and justification and that therefore, the orders passed by the Tribunal are not in accordance
with law and the same should be set aside.
Heard the counsel. The main argument of the counsel for the appellant is that there is no proof to show that 81 passengers had travelled in the
bus. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal had given a categorical finding that these persons had travelled in the bus
which is based on the Investigation Report, which is an exhibit in all the cases. As per the said Investigation Report, 81 persons had travelled, out
of which 32 persons died and 49 persons injured. The finding is based on valid materials and evidence. The other argument of the counsel is that
the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation only for the permissible limit of 57+2 passengers because of the overloading of the bus
beyond the prescribed limit and he relied on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Anjana Shyam and
Others, . In that case, a bus owned by the Tehsil Cooperative Union and insured with the Insurance Company, met with an accident on 4.3.1996.
The said vehicle had a carrying capacity of 42 passengers, plus a driver and a conductor and in terms of Section 147(1)(b)(ii) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, was insured for 42 passengers. On the day of the accident, it was indicated that the bus was overloaded and there were at least 90
passengers. Due to the accident, 26 persons including the one who was driving the vehicle died and 63 persons were injured. The claims were
made and the same were resisted by the Insurance Company. There, the Tribunal held that the Insurance Company is liable for paying the amounts
covered by all the awards exceeding the 42 persons covered by the insurance. Aggrieved, the Insurance company filed 38 appeals challenging the
awards. The High Court held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation as awarded by the Tribunal since it could not also
question the quantum of compensation awarded. Aggrieved, the Insurance Company filed an appeal and took up the matter to the Supreme Court
and the Supreme Court held as follows:
Then arises the question, how to determine the compensation payable or how to quantify the compensation since there is no means of ascertaining
who out of the overloaded passengers constitute the passengers covered by the insurance policy as permitted to be carried by the permit itself? As
this Court has indicated, the purpose of the Act is to bring benefit to the third parties who are either injured or dead in an accident. It serves a
social purpose. Keeping that in mind, we think that the practical and proper course would be to hold that the insurance company, in such a case,
would be bound to cover the higher of the various awards and will be compelled to deposit the higher of the amounts of compensation awarded to
the extent of the number of passengers covered by the insurance policy. Illustratively, we may put it like this. In the case on hand, 42 passengers
were the permitted passengers and they are the ones who have been insured by the insurance company. 90 persons have either died or got injured
in the accident. Awards have been passed for varied sums. The Tribunal should take into account, the higher of the 42 awards made, add them up
and direct the insurance company to deposit that lump sum. Thus, the liability of the insurance company would be to pay the compensation
awarded to 42 out of the 90 passengers. It is to ensure that the maximum benefit is derived by the insurance taken for the passengers of the
vehicle, that we hold that the 42 awards to be satisfied by the insurance company would be the 42 awards in the descending order starting from
the highest of the awards. In other words, the higher of the 42 awards will be taken into account and it would be the sum total of those higher 42
awards that would be the amount that the insurance company would be liable to deposit. It will be for the Tribunal thereafter to direct distribution
of the money so deposited by the insurance company proportionately to all the claimants, here all the 90 and leave all the claimants to recover the
balance from the owner of the vehicle. In such cases, it will be necessary for the Tribunal, even at the initial stage, to make appropriate orders to
ensure that the amount could be recovered from the owner by ordering attachment or by passing other restrictive orders against the owner so as to
ensure the satisfaction in full of the awards that may be passed ultimately.
In the present case, it is brought to my notice that out of 81 claims, the Tribunal considered and awarded compensation for all the 81 cases, but the
Insurance Company has accepted and settled the compensation in respect of 69 claims. There is no dispute that the Insurance Company has not
filed any appeal against the said 69 claims and the same have become final. After accepting the said 69 claims, the Insurance Company preferred
appeals for the remaining 12 cases. It is, therefore, wrong on the part of the Insurance Company to raise a plea that they are liable to pay
compensation for the prescribed limit of passengers in the bus, i.e., 57+2. It is too late in a day, now to contend that the Insurance Company is not
liable to pay any compensation for the present 12 cases when they have accepted the orders and paid compensation for the said 69 claims and
also the orders of the Tribunal in respect of the same, have reached finality. Therefore, the Supreme Court judgment relied on by the counsel will
not help the case of the appellant and also the facts involved in the present cases are different from the facts involved in the Supreme Court
judgment, as the Insurance Company has accepted the award amounts passed by the Tribunal in respect of 69 claims and paid the amounts also to
the respective claimants, and only for the balance present cases, they have filed appeals. It is a vital factor which distinguish these cases from the
Supreme Court judgment. The quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in the present 12 appeals are as under:
CMA No. MCOP No. Fatal/ Age of Amount Amount
Injury injured/claimed awarded
deceased
Rs. Rs.
2855/07 37/1999 Injury 50 1,00,000/- 10,000/-
2856/07 534/2007 Fatal 21 4,00,000/- 2,70,000/-
2888/07 536/2003 Fatal 23 4,00,000/- 2,00,000/-
2889/07 539/2003 Fatal 2 2,00,000/- 1,80,000/-
3175/07 368/1997 Fatal 30 3,00,000/- 2,00,000/-
3176/07 369/1997 Fatal 24 3,00,000/- 2,00,000/-
3177/07 85/1998 Fatal 35 8,05,000/- 4,50,000/-
3178/07 197/1998 Fatal 45 9,00,000/- 3,42,000/-
3179/07 215/1998 Injury 15 1,00,000/- 10,000/-
3180/07 227/1998 Injury 37 2,00,000/- 10,000/-
3181/07 228/1998 Injury 8 1,25,000/- 10,000/-
3182/07 540/2003 Fatal 12 2,00,000/- 1,80,000/-
From the above table, it is clear that out of 12 appeals, 8 Nos. are fatal cases and 4 Nos. are injury cases. The amounts awarded are also very
reasonable. In respect of the same, the appeals are taken up one by one:
CMA No. 2855 of 2007 (MCOP No. 37 of 1999) - related to injury case against the award amount of Rs. 10,000/-.
On the side of the claimant, witness P.W.1 was examined and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 were marked. On the side of the Insurance Company,
witnesses R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B5 were marked. P.W.1 is the claimant himself. R.W.1 is one Babu, Sr.
Assistant in the Appellant/Insurance Company. R.W.2 is one Malaiyarasan, driver of the bus. Ex.A1 is the photocopy of F.I.R. No. 228/97 of
Kodaikanal P.S. Ex.A2 is the photocopy of Insurance Certificate relating to the owner of the vehicle. Ex.A3 is the photocopy of Extract of
Accident Register relating to the claimant. Ex.A4 is the photocopy of Discharge Slip issued to the claimant. Ex.B1 is the photocopy of Insurance
Investigator''s Report. Ex.B2 is the photocopy of R.C. Book relating to the owner of the vehicle. Ex.B3 is the photocopy of permit relating to the
owner of the bus. Ex.B4 is the photocopy of Insurance Certificate issued to the owner of the bus. Ex.B5 is the photocopy of driving licence of the
driver of the bus. The claimant Chandrasekaran was injured in the accident on 02.05.1997. He was 50 years old at the time of accident. He is a
Drawer at AFT Mill. Due to the accident, he sustained head injury, multiple abrasion and laceration all over the body resulting in partial permanent
disablement. After the accident, he was admitted in the Govt. Hospital, Pondicherry on 04.05.1997 and discharged on 12.05.1997. He also
sustained grievous injury over left eye with constant pain and shrinking of left eye with loss of vision. The claimant claimed a compensation of Rs.
1,00,000/-. Ex.A3-photocopy of Extract of Accident Register relating to the claimant and Ex.A4-photocopy of Discharge Slip issued to the
claimant, shows that the claimant sustained lacerated wound over occipital region on the right side and another lacerated wound over right middle
and ring fingers and also other injuries. The Doctor was of the view that the injuries were simple in nature. After taking into consideration of these
evidence, the Tribunal has awarded a consolidated sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards pain and suffering, mental agony, medical expenditure, travel
expenditure and extra nourishment, with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition. I feel that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is very
reasonable and hence it is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition. After taking note of the date of
accident, i.e., 02.05.1997, the Tribunal has correctly awarded the interest rate at 9% p.a. which 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 illegality in the order of the Tribunal so as to warrant
interference. Also the appellant has not produced any material or evidence or any compelling reason to take a different view. Therefore, the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs. 10,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition is confirmed. Accordingly, CMA No.
2855 of 2007 is dismissed.
CMA No. 2856 of 2007 (MCOP No. 534 of 2003) - related to fatal accident against the award amount of Rs. 2,70,000/-
On the side of the claimants, witness P.W.1 was examined and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 were marked. On the side of the Insurance Company,
witnesses R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B5 were marked. P.W.1 is the father of the deceased Ramesh. R.W.1
is one Babu, Sr. Assistant in the Appellant / Insurance Company. R.W.2 is one Malaiyarasan, driver of the bus. Ex.A1 is the photocopy of F.I.R.
No. 228/97 of Kodaikanal P.S. Ex.A2 is the photocopy of Accident Inspection Report relating to the offending vehicle. Ex.A3 is the photocopy
of Post Mortem Report. Ex.A4 is the photocopy of Final Report relating to the F.I.R. Ex.A5 is the certificate issued to the deceased Ramesh and
his brother Sekar by their landlord. Ex.A6 is the rent receipt issued to Sekar. Ex.A7 is the photocopy of O.P. Patient case record issued to the
father of the deceased. Ex.B1 is the photocopy of R.C. Book relating to the owner of the vehicle. Ex.B2 is the photocopy of permit relating to the
owner of the bus. Ex.B3 is the photocopy of Insurance Certificate issued to the owner of the bus. Ex.B4 is the photocopy of driving licence of the
driver of the bus. Ex.B5 is the photocopy of insurance Investigator''s Report. The claimants are the father and mother of the deceased. They
claimed a compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,70,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of
petition. The details of the compensation are as under:
Rupees
Loss of income 2,40,000/-
Loss of love and affection 15,000/-
Funeral expenses 5,000/-
Loss of expectation of life 10,000/-
----------
2,70,000/-
==========
The age of the deceased Ramesh was 21 years at the time of accident. The deceased was travelling in the said bus. He was a two-wheeler
mechanic in a shop owned by his brother Sekar. The Tribunal was of the view that the deceased would have earned not less than Rs. 4,000/- per
month as mechanic. Ex.A6 is the receipt given by Arulmigu Konjumkilli Mariamman Temple & Vellanthangi Iyyanarappan Temple, Mettupalayam,
Pondicherry to the effect that the said Sekar is running a workshop in the land belonging to the said temple by paying rent. Ex.A5 is the certificate
issued by the said Devasthanam. After taking into consideration of these evidence and also the age of the deceased, the Tribunal was of the view
that the deceased would be earning more in future and fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 5,000/- and determined the annual income
at Rs. 60,000/- (Rs. 5,000/- x 12). Out of the said amount, 50% was deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased and the balance sum
of Rs. 30,000/- was taken as the contribution of the deceased to the family instead of the normal 1/3rd deduction towards personal expenses.
Taking into consideration the age of the father and mother of the deceased, i.e., 57 years and 55 years, the Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 8 and
arrived at the loss of income at Rs. 2,40,000/- (Rs. 30,000/- x 8). The Tribunal has correctly determined the monthly and annual income and also
adopted the correct multiplier. Also, the amount awarded towards loss of income at Rs. 2,40,000/- is very reasonable and hence it is confirmed.
The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of love and affection. The claimants lost their son. It is also very reasonable and
hence it is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of expectation of
life. Taking into consideration the age of the deceased, i.e., 21 years, I feel that the Tribunal is correct in awarding Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of
expectancy of life. It is also very reasonable and hence it is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition.
After taking note of the date of accident, i.e., 02.05.1997, the Tribunal has correctly awarded the interest rate at 9% p.a. which 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 illegality in the order of
the Tribunal so as to warrant interference. Also the appellant has not produced any material or evidence or any compelling reason to take a
different view. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs. 2,70,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition is
confirmed. Accordingly, CMA No. 2856 of 2007 is dismissed.
CMA No. 2888 of 2007 (MCOP No. 536 of 2003) and CMA No. 2889 of 2007 (MCOP No. 536 of 2003)
On the side of the claimants, witness P.W.1 was examined and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 were marked. On the side of the Insurance Company,
witnesses R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B5 were marked. P.W.1 is the claimant. R.W.1 is one Babu, Sr.
Assistant in the Appellant/Insurance Company. R.W.2 is one Malaiyarasan, driver of the bus. Ex.A1 is the photocopy of F.I.R. No. 228/97 of
Kodaikanal P.S. Ex.A2 is the photocopy of Insurance Certificate relating to the vehicle. Ex.A3 is the photocopy of Post Mortem Certificate
relating to the deceased Lakshmi @ Thairiyalakshmi. Ex.A4 is the photocopy of Post Mortem Certificate relating to the deceased Abinaya. Ex.A5
is the Legal Heirship Certificate issued by Tahsildar, Cuddalore. Ex.A6 is the Voters'' List relating to Karunguzhi Panchayat Union, Karunguzhi
Block No. 1. Ex.B1 is the photocopy of R.C. Book relating to the owner of the vehicle. Ex.B2 is the photocopy of permit relating to the owner of
the bus. Ex.B3 is the photocopy of Insurance Certificate issued to the owner of the bus. Ex.B4 is the photocopy of driving licence of the driver of
the bus. Ex.B5 is the photocopy of insurance Investigator''s Report.
i) In respect of CMA No. 2888 of 2007 (MCOP No. 536 of 2003), related to fatal accident against the award amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-, the
claimant is the husband of the deceased Lakshmi. The claimant claimed a compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded a
compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition. The details of the compensation are as under:
Rupees
Loss of income 1,70,000/-
Loss of consortium 15,000/-
Funeral expenses 5,000/-
Loss of expectation of life 10,000/-
----------
2,00,000/-
==========
The age of the deceased Lakshmi was 23 years at the time of accident. She was running a tailoring shop. The claimant claimed that she was
earning Rs. 2,000/- per month, but there is no proper documentary evidence filed to substantiate the claim. Therefore, considering the age of the
deceased, the Tribunal has fixed the annual income of the deceased at Rs. 15,000/- in accordance with II Schedule. Out of the said amount, 1/3rd
was deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased and the balance sum of Rs. 10,000/- was taken as the contribution of the deceased to
the family. Thereafter, as per II Schedule, the Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 17 and arrived at the loss of income at Rs. 1,70,000/- (Rs.
10,000/- x 17). The Tribunal has correctly determined the annual income and also adopted the correct multiplier. Also, the amount awarded
towards loss of income at Rs. 1,70,000/- is very reasonable and hence it is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards
loss of consortium. After taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the Tribunal has correctly awarded Rs.
15,000/- towards loss of consortium. It is also very reasonable and hence it is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards
funeral expenses, which is very reasonable and hence it is confirmed. The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of
expectation of life. Taking into consideration the age of the deceased, i.e., 23 years, I feel that the Tribunal is correct in awarding Rs. 10,000/-
towards loss of expectancy of life. It is also very reasonable and hence it is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded interest at 9% p.a. from the date
of petition. After taking note of the date of accident, i.e., 02.05.1997, the Tribunal has correctly awarded the interest rate at 9% p.a. which 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 illegality
in the order of the Tribunal so as to warrant interference. Also the appellant has not produced any material or evidence or any compelling reason to
take a different view. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs. 2,00,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition is
confirmed. Accordingly, CMA No. 2888 of 2007 is dismissed.
ii) In respect of CMA No. 2889 of 2007 (MCOP No. 539 of 2003), related to fatal accident against the award amount of Rs. 1,80,000/-, the
claimant is the father of the deceased Abinaya. The claimant claimed a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded a compensation
of Rs. 1,80,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition. The details of the compensation are as under:
Rupees
Loss of income 1,50,000/-
Funeral expenses 5,000/-
Loss of love and affection 15,000/-
Loss of expectation of life 10,000/-
-----------
1,80,000/-
===========
The age of the deceased Abinaya was 2 years at the time of accident. She was travelling along with her mother, who also died in the same
accident. Ex.A4 is the Post Mortem Certificate relating to the deceased Abinaya, wherein it is stated she was 1 1/2 years old at the time of
accident. After taking into consideration the age of the deceased and the fact that she was the only daughter to the claimant, the Tribunal adopted
the formula as per II Schedule and has taken the annual income of the deceased at Rs. 15,000/-. Out of the said amount, 1/3rd was deducted
towards personal expenses of the deceased and the balance sum of Rs. 10,000/- was taken as loss to the family. Thereafter the Tribunal adopted
the multiplier of 15 as per the II Schedule and arrived at the loss of income at Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rs. 10,000/- x 15). The Tribunal has correctly
determined the annual income and also adopted the correct multiplier. Also, the amount awarded towards loss of income at Rs. 1,50,000/- is very
reasonable and hence it is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses which is very reasonable and
hence it is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of love and affection. After taking into consideration of the
fact that the deceased was the only daughter to the claimant, I feel that the Tribunal has correctly awarded Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of love and
affection. It is also very reasonable and hence it is confirmed. The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of expectation of
life. Taking into consideration the age of the deceased, i.e., 2 years, I feel that the Tribunal is correct in awarding Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of
expectancy of life. It is also very reasonable and hence it is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition.
After taking note of the date of accident, i.e., 02.05.1997, the Tribunal has correctly awarded the interest rate at 9% p.a. which 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 illegality in the order of
the Tribunal so as to warrant interference. Also the appellant has not produced any material or evidence or any compelling reason to take a
different view. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs. 1,80,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition is
confirmed. Accordingly, CMA No. 2889 of 2007 is dismissed.
CMA No. 3175 of 2007 (MCOP No. 368 of 1997) and CMA No. 3176 of 2007 (MCOP No. 369 of 1997)
On the side of the claimants, witness P.W.1 was examined and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 were marked. On the side of the Insurance Company,
witnesses R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B5 were marked. P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased. R.W.1 is one K.
Prabhu, Sr. Assistant in the Appellant/Insurance Company. R.W.2 is one C. Malaiyarasan, driver of the bus. Ex.A1 is the photocopy of Post
Mortem Certificate of the deceased Karthikeyan. Ex.A2 is the Birth Certificate of the deceased Karthikeyan. Ex.A3 is the Salary Certificate of the
deceased Karthikeyan. Ex.A4 and Ex.A5 are the Birth Certificates of the sisters of the deceased Karthikeyan. Ex.A6 is the photocopy of Post
Mortem Certificate of the deceased Ponnusamy. Ex.A7 is the photocopy of F.I.R. No. 228/97 of Kodaikanal P.S. Ex.B1 is the Insurance
Investigation Report. Ex.B2 is the photocopy of R.C. Book relating to the owner of the vehicle. Ex.B3 is the photocopy of Insurance Certificate
issued to the owner of the bus. Ex.B4 is the photocopy of permit relating to the bus. Ex.B5 is the photocopy of driving licence of the driver of the
bus.
i) In respect of CMA No. 3175 of 2007 (MCOP No. 368 of 1997), related to fatal accident against the award amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-, the
claimants are the mother and sisters of the deceased Karthikeyan. They claimed a compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded a
compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition. The details of the compensation are as under:
Rupees
Loss of income 1,80,000/-
Funeral expenses 5,000/-
Loss of love and affection 15,000/-
----------
2,00,000/-
==========
The age of the deceased Karthikeyan was 30 years at the time of accident. The deceased was working as Welder in M/s. Chemline Fabricators,
Pondicherry earning a sum of Rs. 150/- per day. The Tribunal was of the view that the deceased was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month and
calculated the annual income at Rs. 36,000/- (Rs. 3,000/- x 12). Thereafter, the Tribunal deducted 50% of the amount towards personal expenses
of the deceased instead of the normal 1/3rd deduction towards personal expenses, and the balance sum of Rs. 18,000/- was taken as the
contribution of the deceased to the family. Taking into consideration the age of the claimants, who are the mother and sisters of the deceased, the
Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 10 and arrived at the loss of income at Rs. 1,80,000/-. The Tribunal has correctly determined the monthly and
annual income and also adopted the correct multiplier. Also, the amount awarded towards loss of income at Rs. 1,80,000/- is very reasonable and
hence it is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses which is very reasonable and hence it is
confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of love and affection. Taking into consideration the mother and sisters of
the deceased, I feel that the Tribunal is correct in awarding Rs. 5,000/- each to the claimants, totalling to Rs. 15,000/-. Hence it is confirmed. The
Tribunal has awarded interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition. After taking note of the date of accident, i.e., 02.05.1997, the Tribunal has
correctly awarded the interest rate at 9% p.a. which 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 illegality in the order of the Tribunal so as to warrant interference. Also the appellant has not
produced any material or evidence or any compelling reason to take a different view. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.
2,00,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition is confirmed. Accordingly, CMA No. 3175 of 2007 is dismissed.
ii) In respect of CMA No. 3176 of 2007 (MCOP No. 369 of 1997), related to fatal accident against the award amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-, the
claimants are the mother and sisters of the deceased Ponnusamy. They claimed a compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded a
compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition. The details of the compensation are as under:
Rupees
Loss of income 1,80,000/-
Funeral expenses 5,000/-
Loss of love and affection 15,000/-
----------
2,00,000/-
==========
The age of the deceased Ponnusamy was 24 years at the time of accident. The deceased was working as Watchman in Shanmugapuram Co.op
Weavers Society and earning a sum of Rs. 1,075/- per month. The Tribunal was of the view that the deceased was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month
and calculated the annual income at Rs. 36,000/- (Rs. 3,000/- x 12). Thereafter, the Tribunal deducted 50% of the amount towards personal
expenses of the deceased instead of the normal 1/3rd deduction towards personal expenses, and the balance sum of Rs. 18,000/- was taken as
the contribution of the deceased to the family. Taking into consideration the age of the claimants, who are the mother and sisters of the deceased,
the Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 10 and arrived at the loss of income at Rs. 1,80,000/-. The Tribunal has correctly determined the monthly
and annual income and also adopted the correct multiplier. Also, the amount awarded towards loss of income at Rs. 1,80,000/- is very reasonable
and hence it is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses which is very reasonable and hence it is
confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of love and affection. Taking into consideration the mother and sisters of
the deceased, I feel that the Tribunal is correct in awarding Rs. 5,000/- each to the claimants, totalling to Rs. 15,000/-. Hence it is confirmed. The
Tribunal has awarded interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition. After taking note of the date of accident, i.e., 02.05.1997, the Tribunal has
correctly awarded the interest rate at 9% p.a. which 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 illegality in the order of the Tribunal so as to warrant interference. Also the appellant has not
produced any material or evidence or any compelling reason to take a different view. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.
2,00,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition is confirmed. Accordingly, CMA No. 3176 of 2007 is dismissed.
CMA No. 3177 of 2007 (MCOP No. 85 of 1998) - related to fatal accident against the award amount of Rs. 4,50,000/-
On the side of the claimants, witness P.W.1 was examined and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A16 were marked. On the side of the Insurance
Company, witnesses R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B5 were marked. P.W.1 is the daughter of the deceased.
R.W.1 is one Babu, Sr. Assistant in the Appellant/Insurance Company. R.W.2 is one C. Malaiyarasan, driver of the bus. Ex.A1 is the photocopy
of F.I.R. No. 228/97 of Kodaikanal P.S. Ex.A2 is the photocopy of Post Mortem Report. Ex.A3 is the photocopy of Insurance Certificate of the
bus. Ex.A4 is the photocopy of permit for the bus. Ex.A5 is the photocopy of Driving Licence of the driver of the bus. Ex.A6 is the photocopy of
R.C. Book. Ex.A7 is the photocopy of permit of the bus. Ex.A8 is the photocopy of No Objection Certificate issued by D.S.P., Kodaikanal.
Ex.A9 is the photocopy of judgment in O.S. No. 454/97 of II A.D.M. Court, Pondicherry. Ex.A10, 11, 12 and 13 are the Birth Certificates of the
children of the deceased. Ex.A14 is the medical certificate issued to the fourth respondent, Kavitha. Ex.A15 is the Death Certificate of Selvam.
Ex.A16 is the Salary Certificate issued by the Bank of India in respect of the deceased Anjalai. Ex.B1 is the Insurance Investigation Report. Ex.B2
is the photocopy of R.C. Book relating to the owner of the vehicle. Ex.B3 is the photocopy of permit relating to the owner of the bus. Ex.B4 is the
photocopy of Insurance Certificate issued to the owner of the bus. Ex.B5 is the photocopy of driving licence of the driver of the bus. The claimants
are the daughters and son of the deceased Anjalai, w/o Selvam. They claimed a compensation of Rs. 8,05,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded a
compensation of Rs. 4,50,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition. The details of the compensation are as under:
Rupees
Loss of income 4,20,000/-
Funeral expenses 5,000/-
Loss of love and affection 20,000/-
To and fro & other expenses 5,000/-
----------
4,50,000/-
==========
The age of the deceased Anjalai was 35 years at the time of accident. The deceased was working as Sub-Staff Class-IV in the Bank of India.
Ex.A16 is the Salary Certificate issued by the Bank of India wherein it was stated that the salary of the deceased was 3,127.56 per month. Even
though the age of the deceased was mentioned in the claim petition as 35 years, actually the deceased was born in the year 1978. Considering this
fact, the Tribunal held that the age of the deceased was 40 years and adopted 15 multiplier. The Tribunal has taken the monthly income on the
basis of the Ex.A16-Salary Certificate and determined the annual income at Rs. 42,000/-. Out of the said amount, 1/3rd was deducted towards
personal expenses of the deceased and the balance sum of Rs. 28,000/- was taken as the contribution of the deceased to the family. Taking into
consideration the age of the deceased, the Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 15 and arrived at the loss of income at Rs. 4,20,000/- (Rs. 28,000/-
x 15). The Tribunal has correctly determined the monthly and annual income and also adopted the correct multiplier. Also, the amount awarded
towards loss of income at Rs. 4,20,000/- is very reasonable and hence it is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards
funeral expenses and Rs. 5,000/- towards to and fro & other expenses, which are very reasonable and hence they are confirmed. The Tribunal has
awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of love and affection. Taking into consideration of the children of the deceased, I feel that the
Tribunal is correct in awarding Rs. 5,000/- each to the claimants, totalling to Rs. 20,000/-. Hence it is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded
interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition. After taking note of the date of accident, i.e., 02.05.1997, the Tribunal has correctly awarded the
interest rate at 9% p.a. which 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 illegality in the order of the Tribunal so as to warrant interference. Also the appellant has not produced any material or
evidence or any compelling reason to take a different view. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs. 4,50,000/- with interest at
9% p.a. from the date of petition is confirmed. Accordingly, CMA No. 3177 of 2007 is dismissed.
CMA No. 3178 of 2007 (MCOP No. 197 of 1998), CMA No. 3179 of 2007 (MCOP No. 215 of 1998)and CMA No. 3180 of 2007
(MCOP No. 227 of 1998):
On the side of the claimants, witness P.W.1 was examined and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A18 were marked. On the side of the Insurance
Company, witnesses R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B5 were marked. P.W.1 is one Kotteeswari, the widow of
the deceased, Munusamy. R.W.1 is one Babu, Sr. Assistant in the Appellant / Insurance Company. R.W.2 is one C. Malaiyarasan, driver of the
bus. Ex.A1 is the photocopy of F.I.R. No. 228/97 of Kodaikanal P.S. Ex.A2 is the photocopy of Insurance Certificate of the bus. Ex.A3 is the
photocopy of Extract of Accident Register. Ex.A4 is the photocopy of Discharge Slip issued by G.H., Pondicherry. Ex.A5 is the photocopy of
Live Birth Report, issued by JIPMER, Pondicherry. Ex.A6 is the photocopy of Post Mortem Certificate issued by G.H., Madurai. Ex.A7 is the
Burial / Cremation permission. Ex.A8 is the photocopy of 1st page of Family Ration Card, issued to the family of the claimants. Ex.A9 is the
certificate issued by M/s. Sri Rajeswari Lorry Service in respect of the deceased Munusamy. Ex.A10 is the photocopy of extract of Accident
Register in respect of Kotteeswari. Ex.A11 is the x-ray taken on the claimant Kotteeswari. Ex.A12 is the photocopy of Discharge Slip issued by
G.H., Pondicherry in respect of Kotteeswari. Ex.A13 is the Discharge Slip issued by Clinic Nallam, Pondicherry to the claimant Kotteeswari.
Ex.A14 and Ex.A15 are the receipts issued by Clinic Nallam to Kotteeswari. Ex.A16 and Ex.A17 are the cash bills for the purchase of medicines
issued to the claimants. Ex.A18 are the credit bills issued to Kotteeswari by Surat Textiles. Ex.B1 is the photocopy of Insurance Investigation
Report. Ex.B2 is the photocopy of R.C. Book relating to the owner of the vehicle. Ex.B3 is the photocopy of Insurance Certificate relating to the
bus. Ex.B4 is the photocopy of permit relating to the bus. Ex.B5 is the photocopy of driving licence of the driver of the bus.
i) In respect of CMA No. 3178 of 2007 (MCOP No. 197 of 1998), related to fatal accident against the award amount of Rs. 3,42,000/-, the
claimants are the wife, son, mother and daughter of the deceased Munusamy. They claimed a compensation of Rs. 9,00,000/-. The Tribunal has
awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,42,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition. The details of the compensation are as under:
Rupees
Loss of income 3,12,000/-
Funeral expenses 5,000/-
Loss of love and affection 15,000/-
Loss of consortium 10,000/-
----------
3,42,000/-
==========
The age of the deceased Munusamy was 45 years at the time of accident. It was stated that the deceased was a lorry driver and was earning a
sum of Rs. 4,000/- per month. The deceased was the head of the family and Ex.A8 is the Family Ration Card. Ex.A6 is the photocopy of Post
Mortem Certificate issued by G.H., Madurai. Ex.A7 is the Burial / Cremation permission. Ex.A9 is the certificate issued by M/s. Sri Rajeswari
Lorry Service in respect of the deceased Munusamy wherein it is stated that the deceased was working as lorry driver earning Rs. 1,500/- in
addition to other allowances. P.W.1, the wife of the deceased, also deposed that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month, but
no documentary evidence produced in support of the claim. After taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal
had taken the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- and calculated the annual income at Rs. 36,000/- (Rs. 3,000/- x 12). Thereafter, the
Tribunal deducted 1/3rd of the amount towards personal expenses of the deceased and the balance sum of Rs. 24,000/- was taken as the
contribution of the deceased to the family. The age of the deceased was 45 years at the time of accident. Hence the Tribunal adopted the multiplier
of 13 and arrived at the loss of income at Rs. 3,12,000/-. The Tribunal has correctly determined the monthly and annual income and also adopted
the correct multiplier. Also, the amount awarded towards loss of income at Rs. 3,12,000/- is very reasonable and hence it is confirmed. The
Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses which is very reasonable and hence it is confirmed. The Tribunal has
awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of love and affection. Taking into consideration the son, mother and daughter of the deceased, I feel
that the Tribunal is correct in awarding Rs. 5,000/- each to them, totalling to Rs. 15,000/-. Hence it is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum
of Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of consortium. Taking into consideration the age of the widow, i.e. 37 years at the time of accident, I feel that the
Tribunal is correct in awarding Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of consortium. Hence it is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded interest at 9% p.a. from
the date of petition. After taking note of the date of accident, i.e., 02.05.1997, the Tribunal has correctly awarded the interest rate at 9% p.a.
which 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 illegality in the order of the Tribunal so as to warrant interference. Also the appellant has not produced any material or evidence or any
compelling reason to take a different view. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs. 3,42,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from
the date of petition is confirmed. Accordingly, CMA No. 3178 of 2007 is dismissed.
ii) In respect of CMA No. 3179 of 2007 (MCOP No. 215 of 1998), related to injured case against the award amount of Rs. 10,000/-, the
claimant Gnananandan was injured in the accident on 02.05.1997. He was 15 years old at the time of accident. He is a school going boy studying
in IX Standard at Govt. Higher Secondary School, Indira Nagar, Gorimedu, Pondicherry. He was travelling along with his parents and others in
the said bus bearing Registration No. TAU 9515 as a tourist. Due to the accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries on his forehead, right
eyebrow, hands and legs. He is still undergoing periodical treatment and is very often getting unconsciousness and is unable to move his hands and
legs freely. He claimed a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded a consolidated sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards pain and
suffering, mental agony, transport expenses, medical expenses and extra nourishment, with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition. Ex.A3 is
the photocopy of Extract of Accident Register. Ex.A4 is the photocopy of Discharge Slip issued by G.H., Pondicherry. After taking into
consideration of these evidence, I feel that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is very reasonable and hence it is confirmed. The Tribunal
has awarded interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition. After taking note of the date of accident, i.e., 02.05.1997, the Tribunal has correctly
awarded the interest rate at 9% p.a. which 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 illegality in the order of the Tribunal so as to warrant interference. Also the appellant has not produced any
material or evidence or any compelling reason to take a different view. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs. 10,000/- with
interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition is confirmed. Accordingly, CMA No. 3179 of 2007 is dismissed.
iii) In respect of CMA No. 3180 of 2007 (MCOP No. 227 of 1998), related to injured case against the award amount of Rs. 10,000/-, the
claimant Kotteeswari was injured in the accident on 02.05.1997. She was 37 years old at the time of accident. She is a Cloth and Textile
merchant, earning a sum of Rs. 50/- per day. Due to the accident, she sustained grievous head injury and also other grievous injuries on her
forehead, backbone etc. She is undergoing periodical treatment and very often she gets unconsciousness. She claimed a compensation of Rs.
2,00,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded a consolidated sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards pain and suffering, mental agony, transport expenses and loss
of income, with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition. Ex.A10 is the photocopy of extract of Accident Register in respect of Kotteeswari.
Ex.A11 is the x-ray taken on the claimant Kotteeswari. Ex.A12 is the photocopy of Discharge Slip issued by G.H., Pondicherry in respect of
Kotteeswari. Ex.A13 is the Discharge Slip issued by Clinic Nallam, Pondicherry to the claimant Kotteeswari. After considering these evidence,
and the nature of injuries, the Tribunal has correctly awarded a consolidated sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards pain and suffering, mental agony,
transport expenses and loss of income. Also it is very reasonable. Hence it is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded interest at 9% p.a. from the
date of petition. After taking note of the date of accident, i.e., 02.05.1997, the Tribunal has correctly awarded the interest rate at 9% p.a. which
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
illegality in the order of the Tribunal so as to warrant interference. Also the appellant has not produced any material or evidence or any compelling
reason to take a different view. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs. 10,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of
petition is confirmed. Accordingly, CMA No. 3180 of 2007 is dismissed.
CMA No. 3181 of 2007 (MCOP No. 228 of 1998) - related to injured case against the award amount of Rs. 10,000/-
On the side of the claimant, witness P.W.1 was examined and documents Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 were marked. On the side of the Insurance Company,
witnesses R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B5 were marked. P.W.1 is one Umapathy, the claimant''s father. R.W.1
is one Babu, Sr. Assistant in the Appellant / Insurance Company. R.W.2 is one C. Malaiyarasan, driver of the bus. Ex.A1 is the photocopy of
Discharge Slip issued to the claimant by G.H., Pondicherry. Ex.A2 is the photocopy of F.I.R. No. 228/97 of Kodaikanal P.S. Ex.B1 is the
Insurance Investigator''s Report. Ex.B2 is the photocopy of R.C. Book relating to the owner of the vehicle. Ex.B3 is the photocopy of permit
relating to the owner of the bus. Ex.B4 is the photocopy of Insurance Certificate issued to the owner of the bus. Ex.B5 is the photocopy of driving
licence of the driver of the bus. The claimant Minor Pravinraj was injured in the accident and he was 8 years at the time of accident. He is a school
going student. He was travelling along with his mother Megala and many others, as a tourist in the said bus. Due to the accident, the claimant
sustained fracture and grievous injuries on his both legs and hands and is undergoing periodical treatment and is unable to move, sit and stand
freely. After the accident, he was taken to the Government Hospital, Madurai. The claimant claimed a compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/-. The
Tribunal has awarded a consolidated sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards pain and suffering, mental agony, transport expenses, medical expenses and
extra nourishment, with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition. Ex.A1 is the photocopy of Discharge Slip issued to the claimant by G.H.,
Pondicherry. From Ex.A1 it is seen that the claimant sustained multiple injuries as stated above. After considering the oral and documentary
evidence, the Tribunal has correctly awarded a consolidated sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards pain and suffering, mental agony, transport expenses,
medical expenses and extra nourishment, with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition. It is also very reasonable. Hence it is confirmed. The
Tribunal has awarded interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition. After taking note of the date of accident, i.e., 02.05.1997, the Tribunal has
correctly awarded the interest rate at 9% p.a. which 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 illegality in the order of the Tribunal so as to warrant interference. Also the appellant has not
produced any material or evidence or any compelling reason to take a different view. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.
10,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition is confirmed. Accordingly, CMA No. 3181 of 2007 is dismissed.
CMA No. 3182 of 2007 (MCOP No. 540 of 2003) - related to fatal accident against the award amount of Rs. 1,80,000/-
On the side of the claimants, witness P.W.1 was examined and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 were marked. On the side of the Insurance Company,
witness R.W.1 was examined and documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B5 were marked. P.W.1 is the father of the deceased. R.W.1 is one Malaiyarasan,
driver of the bus. Ex.A1 is the photocopy of F.I.R. No. 228/97 of Kodaikanal P.S. Ex.A2 is the photocopy of the Death Certificate of the
deceased Sudha. Ex.A3 is the photocopy of No Objection Certificate issued by Dy. Superintendent of Police, Kodaikanal. Ex.A4 is the Original
Transfer Certificate of the deceased Sudha issued by Nirmala Matriculation H.S.S., Cuddalore. Ex.B1 is the photocopy of R.C. Book relating to
the owner of the bus. Ex.B2 is the photocopy of permit relating to the owner of the bus. Ex.B3 is the photocopy of Insurance Certificate issued to
the owner of the bus. Ex.B4 is the photocopy of driving licence of the driver of the bus. Ex.B5 is the photocopy of Investigator''s report. The
claimants are the father and mother of the deceased Sudha. They claimed a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded a
compensation of Rs. 1,80,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition. The details of the compensation are as under:
Rupees
Loss of income 1,50,000/-
Funeral expenses 5,000/-
Loss of love and affection 15,000/-
Loss of expectation of life 10,000/-
----------
1,80,000/-
==========
The age of the deceased was 12 years at the time of accident. She was a student. Taking into consideration of the fact that the deceased was a
bright student and she got first rank in the class and if she would not have died due to the accident, certainly she would occupy very good place in
the society, the Tribunal determined the annual income at Rs. 15,000/- in accordance with the II Schedule. Out of the said amount, 1/3rd was
deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased and the balance sum of Rs. 10,000/- was taken as the contribution of the deceased to the
family. Taking into consideration the age of the father and mother of the deceased, i.e., 36 years and 21 years, the Tribunal adopted the multiplier
of 15 and arrived at the loss of income at Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rs.10,000/- x 15). The Tribunal has correctly determined the annual income and also
adopted the correct multiplier. Also, the amount awarded towards loss of income at Rs. 1,50,000/- is very reasonable and hence it is confirmed.
The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses which is very reasonable and hence it is confirmed. The Tribunal has
awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of love and affection. Taking into consideration of the fact that the deceased was the only daughter to
the claimants, I feel that the Tribunal has correctly awarded Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of love and affection. Hence it is confirmed. The Tribunal
has also awarded Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of expectation of life. Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that
the Tribunal has correctly awarded Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of love and affection. Hence it is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded interest at
9% p.a. from the date of petition. After taking note of the date of accident, i.e., 02.05.1997, the Tribunal has correctly awarded the interest rate at
9% p.a. which 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 illegality in the order of the Tribunal so as to warrant interference. Also the appellant has not produced any material or evidence or any
compelling reason to take a different view. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs. 1,80,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from
the date of petition is confirmed. Accordingly, CMA No. 3182 of 2007 is dismissed.
Accordingly all the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed. Consequently, M.P. Nos. 2 of 2007 to 2 of 2007 in CMA Nos. 2855, 2856,
2888, 2889 of 2007 and 3175 to 3182 of 2007 and M.P. No. 3 of 2007 in CMA No. 2889 of 2007 are closed. No costs.