Madras High Court
United India Insurance Company Limited vs P.Ranganathan on 11 October, 2018
Author: S.Ramathilagam
Bench: S.Ramathilagam
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11.10.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE TMT.JUSTICE S.RAMATHILAGAM
C.M.A.No.2719 of 2003
and
CMP.No.16472 of 2003
United India Insurance Company Limited,
represented by its Branch Manager,
No.70, N.S.C.Bose Road,
Park Town Branch Office,
Chennai – 600 079. ... Appellant
Versus
1.P.Ranganathan
2.Ramayee
3.Lakshmanan
4.P.S.Senthil Kumar
5.National Insurance company Limited,
Tiruchirappalli.
6.K.P.Prabakaran ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated 06.03.2003 made in
M.A.C.T.O.P.No.5 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
(Fast Track Court), Kallakurichi.
For Appellant : No appearance
For Respondents : Mr.R.Muralidharan for R1 to R3
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
JUDGMENT
The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 06.03.2003 made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.5 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court), Kallakurichi. The Appellant herein is the United India Insurance Company, who is the fourth respondent in the claim application.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows :
On 22.01.1993, while the deceased Vasantha was travelling in the lorry bearing registration no. TMF 1399, the driver of the said lorry had driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the another lorry bearing Registration No.TNT 5782, which came in the opposite direction. As a result, Vasantha died. It is stated that the deceased Vasantha was under employment with the first respondent/Owner of the lorry, in which she travelled.
3. The appellant/fourth respondent has denied the employment of the deceased under the first respondent. Further, it is stated that the said Vasantha was travelling in the lorry as an unauthorized passenger and further denied the rash and negligence on the part of the first respondent vehicle.
4. The appellant/fourth respondent in the counter statement has denied the income, age of the deceased and also denied the occupation of http://www.judis.nic.inthe deceased as a load woman under the first respondent. It is stated in the 3 counter that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the first respondent vehicle. Hence, the appellant/fourth respondent is no way responsible to pay the compensation. Further the appellant has also denied the sum claimed by the claimants.
5. The Tribunal, after analysing the evidence and documents, has discussed the mode of accident and fixed the liability on the driver of the two vehicles equally. Further, against the sum of Rs.4,00,000/- claimed by the claimants, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,49,400/- and the said sum was directed to pay by the second and fourth respondents therein equally, i.e., Rs.1,24,700/- each. Aggrieved against the said liability, the appellant/fourth respondent has preferred this appeal.
6. In the grounds of appeal, it has been stated that the deceased Vasantha was a gratuitous passenger in the lorry bearing Registration No.TMF-1399 insured with the appellant and that she was travelling as unauthorized passenger in the goods carriage vehicle which is against the violation of policy condition. Hence, the appellant is not liable to pay the compensation. With regard to the occupation of the deceased as a load woman in the said lorry there was no proof filed on the side of the claimants and also in the claim petition, there was no mention by the claimant under the column “Name of the employer”. Further grounds raised http://www.judis.nic.in 4 by the appellant is that, it is the driver of the vehicle bearing Registration No.TNT-5782 who has driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident.
7. Further, in the First Information Report, it has been stated that only the first respondent vehicle driver is responsible for the accident. On the whole, the capacity of the deceased as load woman was very much disputed by the appellant herein. The further averment made by the appellant is that the vehicle insured with the respondent is the goods carriage vehicle, under which, only three persons are permitted. However, at the time of the accident ten persons were travelled in the said vehicle, which is against the policy conditions. Hence, it is contended that in the absence of any evidence that the deceased was a load woman, the quantum awarded by the Tribunal is excessive.
8. On a perusal of the records, it is observed that the claimants being legal heirs of the deceased have claimed compensation for the death of the deceased Vasantha, who they claimed is a coolie under first respondent. It is also observed that the fourth respondent's vehicle is insured with the fifth respondent and the sixth respondent's lorry which came in the opposite direction, was insured with the appellant. The First Information Report was registered against the driver of the lorry bearing http://www.judis.nic.in 5 Registration No.TMF-1399. It is argued that the said driver of the vehicle TMF-1399 has not possessed any valid license at the time of the accident.
9. The Tribunal, after analysing the evidence and documents produced, has observed that the accident had occurred in the Chennai National Highways which is the very broad road and in which, four vehicles can easily travel in the said national highways. The Tribunal, by taking into consideration, the deposition of P.W.1 that the accident occurred in the National Highways, has given findings that both the vehicles are responsible for the head on collision. Hence, the liability fixed equally on the second and fourth respondents are quite appropriate.
10. Based on the evidence, the Tribunal has assessed the said fact that the deceased Vasantha was working as a coolie. Further, it is also observed that she was 35 years old at the time of accident. But considering the occupation as a coolie, the tribunal has fixed income at Rs.60/- per day and assessed the annual income at Rs.1,800/- after detecting the one third sum for the personal expenses contribution to the family was calculated at Rs.1,200/- and the annual loss of income was calculated at Rs.2,30,400/- by applying the multiplier of the deceased at 16. Hence, the Tribunal has determined the compensation at Rs.2,49,400/-
http://www.judis.nic.in 6
11. On a perusal of records and evidence, it is observed that the liability fixed on the appellant/fourth respondent is proper, hence, does not require any interference on the side of the claimants. It is argued that even without filing cross appeal for enhancement of compensation, this Court can itself verify the records and easily found the fact that the sum awarded by the Tribunal is very meagre. Hence, it is argued by the claimants that the sum awarded by the Tribunal has to be properly enhanced. The grievances of the claimants is that the deceased was 35 years old at the time of accident and the Tribunal has taken only Rs.1,800/- as annual income, which is very much meagre and since the deceased was taking care of her children and was maintaining her family by contributing her income to the family, hence this Court inclined to modify the monthly income taken by the tribunal, accordingly, this Court fixed the monthly income at Rs.2,000/- for calculating the loss of income. Accordingly, this Court also enhanced the sum awarded under other heads 'loss of consortium' 'funeral expenses' and 'loss of love and affection'.
12. Accordingly, the amount awarded by the Tribunal under various heads are modified by this Court as follows :
http://www.judis.nic.in 7 Heads Amount Amount modified awarded by the by this Court Tribunal (Rs.) (Rs.) Loss of Income 2,30,400.00 2,68,800.00 (1400*12*16) Loss of Consortium 10,000.00 20,000.00 Funeral Expenses 3,000.00 15,000.00 Loss of Love and Affection 6,000.00 10,000.00 Total 2,49,400.00 3,13,800.00
13. Hence, the award of Rs.2,49,400/- granted by the Tribunal in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.5 of 2002 is enhanced to Rs.3,13,800/-. The said amount shall carry the rate of interest at 7.5% per annum and the apportionment shall be as ordered by the Tribunal. The respondents 1 to 4/claimants are directed to pay additional Court fee for the enhanced amount.
14. In view of the above said enhancement, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscelleneous Petition is closed.
15. Accordingly, the appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire award amount, in respect of above Appeal as per the enhancement awarded by this Court, with interest and costs, before the http://www.judis.nic.inTribunal, after adjusting the amount, if any, already deposited, within a 8 period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit being made, the Tribunal is directed to transfer the respective shares of respective claimants to their bank accounts through RTGS within one week thereon.
11.10.2018 Internet: Yes/No Index: Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes/No lpp/arb To
1.The Principal District Judge, The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Perambalur.
2.The Section Officer, V.R. Section, Madras High Court.
S.RAMATHILAGAM, J.
http://www.judis.nic.in lpp/arb 9 C.M.A.No.2719 of 2003 11.10.2018 http://www.judis.nic.in