Madras High Court
Ravi vs Annamalai on 8 March, 2010
Author: C.S.Karnan
Bench: C.S.Karnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.03.2010
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE. C.S.KARNAN
C.M.A.No.1341 of 2009
Ravi .. Appellant
Vs
1.Annamalai
2.The Divisional Manager
National Insurance Co.,
Vellore .. Respondents
Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Award and Decree, dated 29.12.2008, made in M.C.O.P.No.96 of 2006, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Vellore.
For appellant : Mr.S.Gowrishankar
for M/s.P.Krishnan
For respondents : No appearance
J U D G M E N T
The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/petitioner against the Award and Decree, dated 29.12.2008, made in M.C.O.P.No.96 of 2006, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Vellore, awarding a compensation of Rs.51,000/- with 7.5% interest per annum, from the date of filing petition till the date of payment of compensation.
2.Aggrieved by the said Award and Decree, the appellant/petitioner has filed the above appeal praying for additional compensation of Rs.60,000/-.
3.The short facts of the case are as follows:
The petitioner was working as a technician in a private company at Ranipet and was earning a monthly income of Rs.5,000/-. On 14.03.2006, at about 3.30 p.m. when the petitioner was travelling in a two wheeler bearing registration No.TN 7994, on the extreme left side of the Kancheepuram to Arakkonam road and when he was nearing Govindavadi, the auto bearing registration No.TN21 F8112, which was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the two wheeler. Due to the collision, the petitioner sustained grievious injuries on his head and all over his body. He was immediately admitted in the Government Hospital, Kancheepuram and took treatment. Even after the treatment, the petitioner has not recovered and is not able to do any work. The accident happened only due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the auto bearing registration No.TN21 F8112, and as such, the first respondent as the owner of the auto and the second respondent as the insurer of the auto are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. The petitioner has claimed a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- from the respondent, with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
4.Regarding the said accident, a criminal case has been filed by the Kancheepuram Taluk Police, in Crime No.345/2006, as against the driver of the auto bearing registration No.TN21 F8112, under Sections 279 and 337 of I.P.C.
5.The first respondent, in his counter, has resisted the claim denying the averments in the petition as regards the age, income and occupation of the petitioner as well as the manner of the accident. It has been submitted that on 14.04.2006, the respondent's auto driver was driving the auto bearing registration No.TN21 F8112 from Arakkonam to Kancheepuram road in a very careful manner and following all the traffic rules and regulations. While he was nearing Kammarpalayam, the petitioner drove his bike in the opposite direction in a zig zag manner and talking in the cell phone due to which he lost his control and dashed against the auto, fell down and sustained simple injuries. As such, the first respondent has submitted that the accident happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner and that there is not negligence on the part of the respondent's driver. Further, the first respondent has submitted that the driver of the auto bearing registration No.TN21 F8112 had a valid licence to drive the two wheeler and the said auto was duly insured with the second respondent for the period from 23.05.2005 to 22.05.2006 under a Policy No.500502/31/05/6300001946. The first respondent has also submitted that the claim is excessive and has to be dismissed with costs.
6.The second respondent, in his counter, has resisted the claim stating that the petitioner has to prove that the driver of the first respondents auto had been rash and negligent in his driving through documentary evidence. It has also been submitted that the driver of the auto belonging to the first respondent did not wear the requisite badge, which he is bound to wear. It has also been submitted that as the petitioner has not impleaded the owner of the bike and its insurer in the claim petition, the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The second respondent has also stated that the petitioner did not possess a valid driving licence to drive the two wheeler at the time of accident and that the first respondent's auto had not been insured with them during the period of the accident. As such, the second respondent has sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
7.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed two issues for the consideration namely:
(i) Was the accident caused due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the first respondent's auto bearing registration No.TN21 F8112?
(ii) Is the petitioner entitled to get compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation, which he is entitled to get?
8.On the petitioners' side, two witnesses were examined as PW1 and PW2 and seven documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P7. On the respondents' side, one witness was examined as RW1 and two documents were marked as Exs.R1 and R2.
9.The petitioner was examined as PW1. The PW1, in his evidence, has deposed that on 14.03.2006, himself and his friend Vijaya Kumar were travelling in the two wheeler belonging to his friend Vijaya Kumar's uncle and that at 3.30 p.m. in the evening, while they were nearing Agaram near Govindavadi on the Kancheepuram Arakkonam road, the first respondent's auto bearing registration No.TN21 F8112 coming in the opposite direction and driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner had dashed against their two wheeler and caused the accident. In support of his evidence, the PW1 has marked Ex.P1, the FIR. On scrutiny of the Ex.P1, it is seen that on 14.03.2006, at about 3.30 in the afternoon, when the petitioner was travelling in the bike bearing registration No.TN 23 7994, and when he was nearing Govindavadi, the respondents auto proceeding towards Agaram and driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and without giving any signal had suddenly turned the auto to the right side of the road, in order to proceed towards Agaram and consequently dashed the auto against the petitioner's bike. It is further seen that the criminal case, regarding the accident, had been filed only as against the auto driver. Though the respondents had contended in their counters that the accident happened due to the rash and negligent riding of the two wheeler by its rider, no contra evidence had been put forth to negate the evidence of the PW1 and no evidence had been put forth to prove their contention regarding the negligent of the petitioner and that the accident had been caused by him. On scrutiny of the Ex.P4, the copy of the final report filed in the case, wherein it had been stated that the first respondent's auto driver had driven the said auto at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and had not given any signal while turning the auto towards the right side of the road and that he had dashed the auto against the two wheeler of the petitioner and caused the accident. As such, the Tribunal, on considering that a criminal case was filed only as against the auto driver and as no witness has been examined by the respondents side to negate the above report, held that the accident had been caused only by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the auto of the first respondent.
10.On the second respondent's side, it has been contended that the driver of the first respondent's auto has not got the badge from the Regional Transport Organisation to drive the auto at the time of the accident. It has been contended that only after this essential condition is met, can a person drive the auto and as the first respondent's auto driver had only a LMV Licence and did not have the badge during the time of accident, he has violated the rules of the second respondent's insurance policy and that due to this, the second respondent need not pay any compensation to the petitioner. In support of this contention, two documents were marked on the respondents side namely Ex.R1, the Investigation Report of the Investigation Officer of the second respondent and Ex.R2, the Driving Licence issued by the Kancheepuram Regional Transport Organisation's Officer to the first respondent's auto driver, which has been marked through RW1, the Investigation Officer of the second respondent's insurance company. From a scrutiny of the Ex.R2, it is seen that the driver of the auto Dakshinamoorthy has been issued the LMV licence on 09.01.2006. But, he has not been given the badge. The respondents have contended that as the driver of the first respondent's auto did not have the requisite badge to drive the auto and as he has violated the rules as laid down in the policy of insurance taken with them they cannot be held liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. In support of this contention, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent has cited a Judgment made in 2007(2) TNMAC, Page 215, High Court of Madras, Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., vs. Sivammal & Others, wherein the operative portion of the Judgment reads as follows:
"Driver of the Autorickshaw possessing licence to drive light Motor Vehicle and not a transport vehicle No endorsement in licence to drive Public service vehicle which falls within definition of Transport Vehicle A person who knows to drive Light Motor Vehicle cannot be pressumed to know to drive Autorickshaw/A public Service vehicle Person already in possession of a driving licence to drive other than Transport vehicle cannot be permitted to drive Transport Vehicle unless as per form 6 and in terms of Rule 16 driving licence additionally autorizes and entitles him to drive Transport Vehicle person having LMV licence not autorized to drive commercial vehicle without due endorsement made by competent Authorities Licence to drive LMV not appropriate to drive Autorickshaw/Transport Vehicle."
11.As such, the Tribunal held that the second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner and that the liability rests only on the first respondent to pay the compensation to the petitioner.
12.The PW1, in his sworn affidavit, had stated that he had sustained serious injuries in his head, hand and all over his body and has marked Ex.P2, the Wound Certificate and Ex.P5, the Discharge Certificate.
13.The Doctor, who assessed the disability of the petitioner, was examined as PW2. The PW2, in his evidence, has stated that due to injuries sustained by the petitioner in his head, the bone in the left side of his skull had been fractured and projecting inwards and that it had joined in a improper manner and due to leakage of blood in his brain, the petitioner suffers from head aches, bouts of unconsciousness, laziness and due to intake of medicines, also sleeps for long periods of time and has deposed that the petitioner has sustained 35% disability due to the injuries sustained in the accident and in support of this has marked Ex.P6, the Disability Certificate and Ex.P7, the X'rays.
14.The petitioner has claimed that before the accident, he was working at a private company at Royapettah and earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month and that after the accident he has not been able to do any work. But, the petitioner has not marked any documentary evidence to back his claim that he was earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month before the accident. The Tribunal however were of the opinion that the petitioner aged about 23 years at the time of accident, would have difficulty in doing the work, which he used to do before the accident. Hence, the Tribunal on considering the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner on holding that the disability sustained by the petitioner could be taken as 30%, taking Rs.1,300/- as lumpsum compensation for 1% disability and awarded a lumpsum compensation of Rs.39,000/-. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs.7,000/- as compensation under the head of pain and suffering; a sum of Rs.3,000/- as compensation under the head of transport expenses and a sum of Rs.2,000/- under the head of nutrition. In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.51,000/- as compensation to the petitioner and directed the first respondent to deposit the above award of Rs.51,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation, into the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.96 of 2006, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Vellore, within a period of two months from the date of its Order. Further, after such deposit was made, the award was to be invested in a nationalised bank as fixed deposit for a period of three years and the petitioner was permitted to receive the interest on such deposit, once in six months directly from the bank. The Tribunal dismissed the claim as against the second respondent. The Advocate fees was fixed at Rs.2,300/-. The petitioner was directed to pay the Court fee of Rs.127.50 within a period of 15 days from the date of its Order.
15.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended in his appeal that the same Tribunal had passed an award dated 15.10.2008, made in M.C.O.P.No.2 of 2007, based on a claim made by the rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No.TN21 F8112 and held that both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount. Surprisingly, on the very same suit of facts, the same learned Judge had in M.C.O.P.No.96 of 2006, which claim had been preferred by the pillion rider of the motorcycle, passed an award dated 29.12.2008 held that only the first respondent, the owner of the autorickshaw was liable to pay the compensation. Further, it has been contended that the learned Tribunal had erred in holding that the driver of the autorickshaw did not have a valid licence and a badge to drive the vehicle involved in the accident. It has also been contended that the Tribunal had erred in reducing the percentage of permanent disability assessed by the Doctor without any evidence and as such it was contrary to law. It was also contended that the Tribunal failed to take into consideration the period during which the injured had been confined to hospital, while arriving at the compensation payable. It has also been contended that the Tribunal ought to have taken note of the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant and adopted at least Rs.2,000/- per percentage of disability incurred by the appellant instead of fixing Rs.1,300/- per percentage of disability. It was also contended that the compensation granted under the other heads are on the lower side and hence the learned counsel appearing for the appellant had prayed to set aside the award and decree passed by the Tribunal and had sought an additional compensation of Rs.60,000/-.
16.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant in support of his contentions has cited the following two Judgments made in 2007 (2) TN MAC 147, S.Palaniswamy & Anr. v.Chinnakali & Others, the following head notes of which are as follows:
"MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, Ss.173 & 168 Appeal against award of Tribunal Deceased travelling in Mini Lorry as a cleaner Bus coming from opposite direction dashed against Mini Lorry Deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on spot Finding of Tribunal that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of bus and held owner and Insurer of bus liable for compensation But, exonerated owner and Insurer of Mini Lorry However, finding of another Court of law that both drivers of vehicles were responsible for accident and both Insurance Companies liable to pay compensation There cannot be different findings by different Courts in respect of one set of facts Held, Tribunal failed to appreciate evidence in proper manner Appellants/owner and Insurer of Bus and owner and Insurer of Mini Lorry, held, equally liable for payment of compensation Each directed to borne 50% of compensation awarded by Tribunal."
2008 (1) TN MAC 200 (SC), National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Annappa Irappa Nesaria & others, the following head notes of which are as follows:
"MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, Ss.2(21), 2(23), 3 & 149(2) CENTRAL MOTOR VEHICLES RULES, 1989, Rule 2(e), Forms 4, 6, 7 & 14 G.S.R. No.221(E)/2001 w.e.f.28.03.2001 Light Goods Vehicle Driving possessing Driving Licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) If, effective Driving Licence to drive a Light Goods Vehicle Offending vehicle, a Matador Van with Goods Carriage permit, unladen weight of which is 3500 kgs. - Unladen weight of vehicle being much less than 7,500 kgs., whether same would come within definition of "Light Motor Vehicle" as per S.2(21) and whether Driving Licence possessed by driver would be effective and valid Driving Licence Contention that keeping in view definition of "Light Motor Vehicle" in S.2(21), a Light Goods Carriage would come within purview thereof Contention that "Light Goods Carriage" having not been defined in Act, definition of Light Motor Vehicle takes within its umbrage both transport vehicle and Non Transport Vehicle S.2(16) defines Heavy Goods Vehicle as goods carriage unladen weight of which exceeds 12,000 kgs. - S.2(21) defines "Light Motor Vehicle" as vehicle unladen weight of which does not exceeds 7,500 kgs. - And, S.2(23) defines "Medium Goods Vehicles" as goods carriage other than Light Motor Vehicle or Heavy Goods Vehicle S.3 requires a driver to hold effective Driving Licence and Rule 14 prescribes for filing of Application in Form 4 for a licence to drive motor vehicle categorising same in 9 types of vehicles Clauses (d), (e) & (g) in Form 4 before 2001 Amendment (vide G.S.R. 221(E)/2001) provided for Light Motor Vehicle, Medium Goods Vehicle and Heavy Goods Vehicle respectively After 2001 Amendment "Medium Goods Vehicles" and "Heavy Goods Vehicle" substituted by "Transport Vehicle" Light Motor Vehicle at relevant point of time before 2001 Amendment continued to cover both "Light Passenger Carriage Vehicle" and "Light Goods Carriage Vehicle" A driver who had a licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle, therefore was authorised to drive a Light Goods Vehicles as well Amendments carried out in Form 4 of Rules having a prospective operation, licence held by driver of vehicle in question therefore, cannot be invalid in law Appeal filed by Insurer having no merit dismissed with cost."
17.Considring the facts and circumstances of the case and scrutiny of findings of the Tribunal and arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, this Court is of the view that the award granted by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.96 of 2006, dated 29.12.2008 is on the lower side. Considering that head injuries has been sustained by the claimant and that his fractured bone of his skull and projected inwards and become deformed and also considering that there has been leakage of blood in his brain and associated complexities, this Court decides to enhance the compensation as follows:
1.For 35% disability sustained by the petitioner, as per Ex.P6, this Court awards a sum of Rs.70,000/- as the petitioner's age was 25 at the time of accident and also considering that the claimant has sustained a head injury.
2.For pain and suffering, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.7,000/-, this Court enhances the award granted under this head to Rs.10,000/-.
3.For transport expenses, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.3,000/-, this Court enhances the award granted under this head to Rs.5,000/-.
4.For nutrition, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/-, this Court enhances the award granted under this head to Rs.5,000/-.
5.For loss of pleasure of life, this Court awards a compensation of Rs.10,000/-.
6.Considering the evidence of Doctor, PW2, that there is leakage of blood in the claimant's brain and that he may need future medical treatment, this Court grants an award of Rs.10,000/- as compensation under the head of future medical expenses.
7.Considering that the petitioner has sustained head injuries and considering that he would have incurred a loss in his income for three months, this Court grants an award of Rs.15,000/- to the claimant under the head of loss of income for three months.
In total, this Court grants an award of Rs.1,25,000/- to the claimant. As the Tribunal had already awarded a sum of Rs.51,000/- as compensation and the appeal has been restricted to only Rs.60,000/-, this Court grants an additional compensation of a sum of Rs.60,000/- to the claimant together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation, as it is found to be fair and equitable.
18.Therefore, this Court directs the first respondent to deposit a sum of Rs.60,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this Order.
19.In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the Award and Decree, dated 29.12.2008, in M.C.O.P.No.96 of 2006, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vellore, is modified. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed. There is no order as to costs.
08.03.2010 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No krk To
1.Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Vellore.
2. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.
C.S.KARNAN, J.
krk Pre-delivery Order in C.M.A.No.1341 of 2009 08.03.2010