Madras High Court
Natchathiram And Ors. vs Jayasekaran And Ors. on 22 July, 1998
Equivalent citations: 2000ACJ902, (1998)IIIMLJ603
JUDGMENT K. Gnanaprakasam, J.
1. The appellants in C.M.A. No. 481 of 1990 are the claimant Nos. 1, 2 and 4 in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 307 of 1986 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tindivanam, which passed an order on 6.9.1988 awarding a sum of Rs. 64,800 as compensation, against the claim of Rs. 4,50,000 which is restricted to Rs. 2,50,000. Aggrieved by the said order, the claimants have preferred the present civil miscellaneous appeal.
2. C.M.A. No. 1587 of 1995 is filed by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., which was the respondent No. 4 in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 307 of 1986 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tindivanam, as the Tribunal fastened 50 per cent of the liability to the appellant and to the owner of the vehicle, viz., Parthasarathy, the appellant was aggrieved by the said order and filed the present civil miscellaneous appeal.
3. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred as they were arrayed in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 307 of 1986.
4. The deceased Padmarajan was the husband of the claimant No. 1 and father of the claimant No. 2 and son of the claimant Nos. 3 and 4. Claimant No. 3 has not filed the appeal. Claimant No. 4 is the mother of the deceased.
5. The case of the claimants is that on 10.4.1986, when Padmarajan was driving the goods vehicle bearing registration No. TMA 9259, the tractor bearing registration No. TNF 6717 and the trailer bearing registration No. TNF 6718 owned by the respondent No. 1, insured with the respondent No. 2, viz., United India Insurance Co. Ltd. came and dashed against the lorry and caused the accident, in which the lorry driver, viz., Padmarajan died on the spot itself. The claimants are the dependants of the lorry driver, who have filed the claim petition.
6. The respondent No. 1 contended that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry and that, therefore, he was not liable to pay any compensation. The respondent No. 2 also contended that the accident has not taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor. But it had taken place only due to the rashness and negligence of the lorry driver and, therefore, submitted that the amount of compensation claimed by the claimants is not sustainable.
7. The respondent No. 4 contended that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are alone liable to pay compensation and in any event, the amount of compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive.
8. The Tribunal, even after going through the first information report was not able to come to the conclusion who was actually responsible for the accident.
9. The learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the evidence of PW 3, viz., Janakiraman was not properly appreciated and considered by the Tribunal. But, on the other hand, the Tribunal has not placed much reliance upon the evidence of PW 3. It is, therefore, pointed out that the Tribunal was not correct in not having relied upon the evidence of PW 3, Janakiraman and it was pointed out he was an independent witness, who spoke the fact that the accident had taken place only due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor, at the time when the tractor had taken a turn, came and dashed against the lorry which caused the accident. It is, therefore, submitted on behalf of the claimants that the findings of the Tribunal that the evidence of PW 3 cannot be relied upon is not proper.
10. The evidence of Janakiraman, PW 3, is the evidence of eyewitness and it is cogent and natural. He also spoke how the accident has taken place which according to me can be safely accepted and that too in the absence of any contra evidence. Even in the cross-examination, he denied the question that he has not seen the accident and he was giving false evidence. The mere fact that he has not given any complaint to the police will not diminish the credibility of the witness to any extent as observed by the Tribunal. In the said circumstances, I have to hold that the Tribunal was not right in not having relied upon the evidence of Janakiraman, PW 3. Consequently, if the evidence of PW 3 is admitted then the question who has caused the accident would become easy and now it is seen that the driver of the tractor alone caused the accident and that, therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that both the driver of the lorry and the driver of the tractor were equally responsible and liable for the accident is not proper. In the above said circumstances, I come to the conclusion that the accident had taken place only due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor driver. Hence, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are liable to pay compensation to the claimants.
11. As I have come to the conclusion that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor and trailer it is to be held that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 alone are made liable to pay the compensation amount that will be awarded for the claimants. In view of the said findings, the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are not liable to pay the compensation and that, therefore, the CM.A. No. 1587 of 1995 filed by the insurance company is allowed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
12. The claimants who are the appellants before this Honourable Court have filed an appeal for enhancement of compensation. The learned advocate for the appellants has submitted that the finding of the Tribunal with regard to the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 300 was very low. But, on the other hand, the salary as claimed by them at Rs. 300 per month and Rs. 50 as daily batta should have been accepted by the Tribunal. As the claimants have not filed any document showing the monthly salary of the deceased, the Tribunal fixed the monthly salary at Rs. 300 and the same appears to be very low. The monthly salary of the lorry driver at the time would have been more than Rs. 600 apart from the daily batta. Hence, the monthly salary of the lorry driver can be fixed at Rs. 600. There is no necessity to take any amount from the salary of the deceased as he was getting the daily batta to meet his personal expenses. Hence, it can be safely believed that he would have given a sum of Rs. 600 to the family if he had been alive. Hence, the loss of dependency can be arrived at Rs. 600 and for one year, it will come to Rs. 7,200 (Rs. 600 x 12 = Rs. 7,200). The deceased was aged about 35 years on the date of the accident and he died leaving behind him his mother, wife and a minor child and hence, a multiplier of 12 may be adopted. Then, the amount that would be payable comes to Rs. 86,400 (Rs. 7,200 x 12 = Rs. 86,400).
13. A sum of Rs. 5,000 is awarded as consortium for the claimant No. 1. A sum of Rs. 5,000 is awarded for the loss of son to the claimant No. 3 and Rs. 4,000 is awarded for the loss of love and affection to the appellant No. 2 who is the minor. On the whole, the amount payable comes to Rs. 1,00,400 and I reduce the same to Rs. 1,00,000. Hence, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are liable to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 to the appellants.
14. In and out of Rs. 1,00,000 a sum of Rs. 25,000 is awarded for the appellant No. 1 and a sum of Rs. 25,000 is awarded for the appellant No. 3 and a sum of Rs. 50,000 is awarded for the appellant No. 2, who is a minor. These amounts will carry interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of petition. The amount awarded to the appellant No. 2, viz., Richard Imanuel shall be deposited in a nationalised bank as per the directions given by the Tribunal. In other respects, the order of the Tribunal left unaltered. But, however, there will be no order as to costs.