The Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs V. Uma Maheswari and Others

C.S. Karnan, J.—The above appeal has been filed by the Appellant / Oriental Insurance Company Limited, against the award and decree

dated 31.01.2006 made in M.C.O.P. No. 3630 of 2001, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court-III, Chennai.

The short facts of the case are as follows:

On 10.03.2001 at around 15.00 hours, the deceased Venkatesan was standing at the corner of 2nd Street, Vijai Nagar, Velacherry and at that

point of time, a lorry bearing Registration No. TN 20 Z 9090 was coming in a rash and negligent manner from east to west direction and hit against

him, resulting that he sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to them. Hence the legal heirs of the deceased have filed the claim petition against

the Respondent for compensation a sum of Rs. 14,00,000/- with interest.

The second Respondent had filed a counter statement and resisted the claim. The second Respondent denied the accident that it was committed

by the first Respondent''s driver. The Respondent is unable to know the driving license and Insurance policy that were in force at the time of the

accident. The Respondent denied the age, income and occupation of the deceased.

On the pleading of both parties, the Tribunal had framed two issues for consideration, namely;

(i) Was the accident committed by the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No. TN 20 Z 9090 in a rash and negligent manner?

(ii) What is the quantum of compensation the claimants are entitled to receive?

On the side of the claimants two witnesses were examined and eight documents were marked. On the side of the Respondent no witness was

examined and no document was marked. The marked documents are as follows:

Legal heir Certificate, FIR, Sketch, Charge Sheet, Postmortem Report, Medical Bills and assets particulars.

PW1, the wife of the deceased had adduced evidence stating that the accident had occurred on 10.03.2001 to her husband, but had expired on

02.04.2001, even after better treatment. At the time of the accident her husband''s age was 38 years, who was doing textile and finance business,

as such the deceased''s income was Rs. 10,000/- per month. She further stated that she spent a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards medical expenses,

her husband was earning sufficient income, in order to prove the same she had marked four sale deeds. She further stated that on 10.03.2001 at

around 3 p.m., the first Respondent''s lorry driver had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against her husband, who was

standing on a street corner, the same was witnessed by PW2, one Saraswathy, who spoke on the same line.

On considering the evidence of the witnesses and documentary evidence, the Tribunal had fixed the income of the deceased as Rs. 5,000/- per

month. Therefore, the Tribunal had awarded the compensation as follows:

Rs. 6,40,000/- towards loss of dependency;

(Rs. 5,000 x 12 x 1/3 x 2 x 16 = Rs. 6,40,000)

Rs. 1,08,600/- towards medical expenses;

Rs. 10,000/- consortium to the first claimant;

Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of love and affection for the minor claimant;

Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses;

Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of love and affection to the third claimant.

In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 7,78,600/- 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.

Aggrieved by the said award, the Appellant has filed the above appeal.

The learned Counsel for the Appellant argued that the deceased''s age was 38 years and his income Rs. 5,000/- per month, which was

arbitrarily fixed by the Tribunal in the absence of documentary evidence. The Tribunal awarded under the heads of ''Consortium'' and ''love and

affection'' which are also not proper. Further, the learned Counsel argued that the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,08,600/- under the head of

''medical expenses'' without proper medical records.

Learned Counsel for the claimants argued that the accident had occurred on 10.03.2001, immediately, the deceased was admitted in the

hospital, wherein the deceased had undergone several treatments, finally the treatment was not effective, resulting, he had expired. The deceased

was earning sufficient income and in order to prove the same four sale deeds had been marked. These properties had been purchased out of the

income of the deceased, who was the breadwinner of the family and all the claimants were depending upon the income of the deceased. The

learned Counsel specifically argued that after deducting medical expenses a sum of Rs. 1,08,600/-, the balance compensation is meager. Funeral

expenses, love and affection heads are on the lower side.

On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments submitted by the learned Counsels on either side and on perusing the

impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no discrepancy for fixing the age and income of deceased and

awarded the compensation under the head of dependency. The other heads, viz., consortium, love and affection, medical expenses and funeral

expenses are also reasonable. Therefore, this Court is not warranted to interfere with the quantum of compensation, hence it is confirmed, as fair

and equitable.

It is open to the claimants to withdraw their apportioned share amount with accrued interest thereon as fixed by the Tribunal lying in the credit

of M.C.O.P. No. 3630 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court-III, Chennai, after filing necessary payment

out of application in accordance with law, subject to withdrawals if any made already.

In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the award and decree, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal, Fast Track Court-III, Chennai, made in M.C.O.P. No. 3630 of 2001, dated 31.01.2006 is confirmed. There is no order as to costs.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.