Madras High Court
The New India Assurance Company Limited vs ) Palaniammal on 6 September, 2013
Author: C.S.Karnan
Bench: C.S.Karnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 06.09.2013 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN C.M.A.No.362 of 2003 and M.P.No.3052 of 2003 The New India Assurance Company Limited represented by its Branch Manager Gopichettipalayam. .. Appellant vs 1) Palaniammal 2) P.Gopalan 3) S.Selvaraj .. Respondents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988, against the decree and common order dated 17.07.2002 made in MCOP No.33 of 2001, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Judge of Gobichettipalayam). For Appellant : Mr.K.Padmanabhan For Respondents : Mr.N.Manokaran (R1) No appearance (R2 and R3) JUDGMENT
The appellant/3rd respondent has preferred the present appeal in C.M.A.No.362 of 2003, against the decree and common order dated 17.07.2002 made in MCOP No.33 of 2001, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Judge of Gobichettipalayam).
2. The short facts of the case are as follows:-
The petitioner, who is the mother of the (deceased) Mahesh, has filed the claim in MCOP No.33 of 2001, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the respondents for the death of the said Mahesh in a motor vehicles accident. It was submitted that on 27.03.2000, at about 4.00 p.m., when the deceased was travelling in the 2nd respondent's vehicle bearing registration No. TN 36 C 2604, and when the vehicle was proceeding on the Sathi-Mysore N.H. Road, from west to east and when the vehicle was near Uthiyamarathittu, the driver of the vehicle drove it at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed it against a goods vehicle coming in the opposite direction. As a result, the deceased Mahesh and some others who travelled in the vehicle sustained injuries. The deceased Mahesh was admitted at Sathiyamangalam Government Hospital, but in spite of treatment, the deceased succumbed to his injuries. At the time of accident, the deceased mahesh was studying in the 7th Standard at Vaniputhur Panchayat Union Middle School. Hence, the petitioner has filed the claim against the respondents 1 to 3, who are the driver, owner and insurer of the vehicle bearing registration No. TN 36 C 2604.
3. The second respondent in his counter, which was adopted by the first respondent, has submitted that the deceased Mahesh and two others had hired the first respondent's vehicle in order to sell their coconuts at Bannariamman Temple. It was submitted that when the first respondent was driving the vehicle from Bannariamman Temple on the extreme left of the road, as per traffic rules and regulations, the deceased Mahesh and one Nanjammal had travelled on the rear right side of the Mini-door vehicle and when the vehicle was near Uthayamarathittu at 1.45 p.m, the goods matador van, coming in the opposite direction and driven at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the right side body of the first respondent's vehicle and caused the accident. The first respondent had immediately admitted the deceased Mahesh, Nanjammal and Karuppayal, at the Government Hospital, wherein the deceased Mahesh had succumbed to his injuries. It was submitted that the complaint regarding the accident had been given by the first respondent and that no charge sheet has been filed against him. It was submitted that the claim was bad for non-jointer of the husband of the petitioner as necessary party. It was submitted that the petitioner can get solatium from the Tamil Nadu Government by giving a petition and is not entitled to file a claim before this Court. It was submitted that the petitioner should prove the age and educational qualification of the deceased through documentary evidence. It was submitted that the claim was excessive.
4. The third respondent, in his counter has submitted that the petitioner should prove the age, income and avocation of the deceased and also prove that she is the legal-heir of the deceased through documentary evidence. The averments in the claim that the accident had been caused only by the negligence of the first respondent was also not admitted. It was submitted that the accident was caused only by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the matador van, who had not stopped the van after dashing it against the first respondent's vehicle. It was submitted that as the deceased Mahesh and some others had travelled as passenger in the second respondent's goods vehicle, the policy conditions of Insurance and the conditions laid down in Motor vehicles Act had been violated and as such, the third respondent is not liable to pay compensation.
5. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed two issues for consideration in the case, namely (i) Due to whose negligence was the accident caused? (2) Is the petitioner entitled to get compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation, which is entitled to get?
6. In the same accident, one other claim has been filed by the injured petitioner in MCOP No.34 of 2001, claiming compensation from the same respondents for the injuries sustained by her in the accident. On the request made by the counsels for their respective petitioners in the claim, through a joint memo, a joint trial was conducted and common evidence was recorded. The petitioner in MCOP No.33 of 2001 was examined as P.W.1, the petitioner in MCOP No.34 of 2001 was examined as P.W.2, one palaniappan was examined as P.W.3 and one Doctor Periasamy was examined as P.W.4 and 10 documents were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.10, namely, copy of First Information Report, Copy of Postmortem report, copy of M.V.I's report, copy of Rough Sketch, copy of referred plaint, Death Certificate, Registered Letter, copy of accident register, copy of Disability Certificate and X'rays. On the respondents' side four witnesses were examined and three documents were marked as Ex.R.1 to R3, namely, Ex.R1, C.D. file, Ex.R.2, affidavit of Nanjammal, Ex.R.3, copy of insurance policy.
7. P.W.1 had adduced evidence that on 27.03.2000 at about 02.00 p.m, when her son had travelled along with Nanjammal (PW.2) and Palaniappan (P.W.3) and one Karuppyal in the second respondent's mini tempo, in order to sell coconuts and when they were returning from Bhannari after selling coconuts, the said Palaniappan (P.W.3) and the first respondent were seated in the front side seat of tempo and that her son and the other two persons were seated in the backside of tempo, she deposed that when the vehicle was proceeding from west to east on the road, the first respondent had driven the vehicle in the middle of the road at a high speed and had dashed the right side body of mini tempo against a van coming in the opposite direction and as a result her son had sustained head injuries and died on the spot and that P.W.2 had lost her left arm and that Karuppayal had also sustained injuries in her head. In support of her evidence she had marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.15.
8. P.W.2 and P.W.3 who had also travelled in the first respondent's van and who are the eye-witnesses had also adduced evidence which is on similar lines to the evidence of P.W.1 regarding manner of accident. P.W.3 had further stated that they were youngest persons, they had not given any complaint at the police station and that the first respondent had given the complaint regarding the accident at the police station.
9. R.W.1. Selvaraj, the first respondent and driver of the minidoor auto bearing registration No.TN 36-C-2604, had adduced evidence that when he was driving the auto along with Karuppayal, P.W.2 and Mahesh, from Bannari after selling coconuts at Bannari, and when he was driving the auto carefully and cautiously from west to east, he had seen the matador van coming in the opposite at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and that on seeing this, he had driven the auto to the extreme left of the road, but in spite of it , the van had dashed against the right side body of the auto and caused the accident. He deposed that the matador van did not stop even after colluding with his auto. He deposed that he had given the complaint regarding the accident at the police station. However, the tribunal, on scrutiny of Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4 and scrutiny of evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 held that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving by the first respondent.
10. R.W.2, the Sub-Inspector, at the Sathyamangalam Police Station had adduced evidence that on 27.03.2000, R.W.1 had given a written complaint regarding the accident in C.C.No.143 of 2000 and that it was registered under Section 279, 337 and 339 and 304(A) of IPC. He deposed that the primary investigation had been done by Kuppusami, the Inspector attached to Bangalaputhur Police Station, and that the driver of the mini-door auto, namely, Gopal and the owner i.e., the second respondent were enquired and that P.W.2 and Karuppayal, who had travelled in the mini-door auto were examined and their evidence was recorded. He deposed that all the witnesses in their evidence had stated that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the goods van coming in the opposite direction to that of the mini-door auto. He deposed that a final report had been filed stating the driver of the madator van had not yet been found and in support of his evidence, he had marked Ex.R.1, police records and Ex.R2, evidence of Nanjammal.
11. R.W.3, Dhanapalan, the officer in the third respondent's firm had adduced evidence that the mini-door auto bearing registration No. TN 36 C 2604, had been insured with them and that the policy of the vehicle had been marked as Ex.R.3. He deposed that the first respondent was not responsible for the accident and as such the third respondent is not liable to pay compensation. He deposed that as the deceased Mahesh and Nanjammal had travelled as passengers in the second respondents goods auto, the policy condition of insurance had been violated and as such, the third respondent is not liable to pay compensation.
12. R.W.4, the Divisional Officer of the Bannariamman Temple Trust had adduced evidence that no person can set up a shop on the temple premises without getting the permission from the temple trust and that all shops were let out only on lease. He deposed that on 27.03.2000, Thambi Gounder of Kaliankattu, Vaniputhur village had not taken any shop on lease in their premises. The Tribunal observed that R.W.4 had only stated that any sale done in the temple premises has to be approved by them and that based on this, no conclusions can be drawn that the said persons who had travelled in the second respondent's mini-door auto did not carry a load of coconuts for sale at Bannari temple. On scrutiny of Ex.P.5, it is seen that the Inspector had given a final report that the van driver cannot be traced. On scrutiny of Ex.P.6, it is seen that the deceased Mahesh had died on 27.03.2000. Hence, the tribunal on scrutiny of oral and documentary evidence held that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent.
13. P.W.1 had further adduced evidence that her son was aged 15 years at the time of his death and that he was studying in 7th Standard at Vaniputhur School and that he was her only son. She deposed that her husband had deserted her 7 to 8 years ago and that she is not aware of his whereabouts. In support of her evidence, she had marked Ex.P.6, Death Certificate and Ex.P.7 Record Sheet. The Tribunal, on holding that the notional income of the deceased was Rs.90/- per day observed that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.2700/- per month. On deducting Rs.1050/- for his personal expenses and on adopting multiplier of 15', awarded a sum of Rs.2,97,000/- as compensation to the petitioner under the head of loss of income; Rs.5000/- was awarded to the petitioner under the head of loss of love and affection and Rs.5000/- was awarded for funeral expenses. In total, the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,07,000/- as compensation to the petitioner and directed the respondents to jointly and severally deposit the said sum together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till date of deposit, with costs, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
14. Aggrieved by the award passed by the tribunal, the third respondent/the New India Assurance Company Ltd., Gopichettipalayam has preferred the present appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended in his appeal that the tribunal failed to note that even though P.W.3 was examined and he had also alleged that he was also travelling in the said mini-door auto and stated that the alleged accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the mini-door auto by the second respondent herein, whereas in the First Information Report or in the other criminal case records i.e., C.D., file marked as Ex.R.1, his name did not find a place and no indication whatsoever has been given about his alleged travelling in the said mini-door auto at the time of accident. It was contended that the tribunal failed to note that as per First Information Report and Charge Sheet and statement of P.W.2 and R.W.1 before the police, they have clearly stated that the alleged accident took place only due to the rash and negligent driving of the unidentified matador van, which came from the opposite direction and dashed against the mini-door auto and on that basis the police have thoroughly investigated the matter and found that the alleged accident was only due to the rash and negligent driving of an unidentified matodar van and in spite of their best efforts they could not trace the vehicle and therefore, they have filed a final report marked as Ex.P.3 before the Judicial Magistrate, Sathyamangalam and treated the criminal case as undetected. It was contended that the tribunal ought to have seen that the non-appearance of the driver of the mini-door auto before the Lower Court, would throw grave and suspicious circumstances under which the alleged accident occurred and involvement of the subject vehicle on the relevant period of time. It was contended that the tribunal ought to have seen that based on the oral and documentary evidence, composite negligence should have been fastened on the drivers of both vehicles. It was contended that the tribunal failed to note that as R.W.1 i.e., the owner of vehicle did not pay any premium for covering risk of passengers travelling in his goods auto, he alone should be held liable to pay compensation. It was contended that the income of the deceased fixed at Rs.2700/- p.m by tribunal was excessive as the deceased was a school going boy and hence, the tribunal ought to have fixed his income at Rs.15,000/- per year and after adopting a multiplier of 15' awarded a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- only for loss of income. Hence, it was prayed to set aside the award passed by the tribunal.
15. The learned counsel for the claimant argued that the First Information Report had been registered against the van driver, who had committed the said accident in a negligent manner and in order to prove the same, sketch had been marked. Further, the deceased was aged 15 years and he was a school going boy.
16. On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the conclusions arrived at regarding negligence, liability and quantum of compensation.
17. As per the evidence of the eye-witness, who had also filed claim petition, it had been stated that the driver of the van had committed the said accident in a negligent manner and the vehicle had been insured with the appellant herein. As such, the appellant is liable to pay compensation. Regarding quantum of compensation, it is not on the higher side, since the deceased's age was 15 years and he was a school going boy and the mother who is the claimant, is in a deserted condition at present. Therefore, the award is confirmed.
18. This Court directed the appellant/Insurance Company to deposit the entire compensation amount with interest. Now, the claimant is at liberty to withdraw the said compensation amount, with accrued interest thereon, lying in the credit of MCOP No.33 of 2001, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Judge of Gobichettipalayam).
C.S.KARNAN.J skn
19. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the award and decree dated 17.07.2002 made in MCOP No.33 of 2001, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Judge of Gobichettipalayam) is confirmed. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
06.09.2013 Index : Yes / No Internet: Yes / No skn To The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal Subordinate Judge Gobichettipalayam.
C.M.A.No.362 of 2003and
M.P.No.3052 of 2003