Madras High Court
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs Karuppa Gounder on 27 March, 2013
Author: C.S.Karnan
Bench: C.S.Karnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27.03.2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN C.M.A.No.1175 of 2013 & M.P.No.1 of 2013 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, No.59, Raja Street, Gobi Town & Taluk, Erode District. ... Appellant Vs. 1.Karuppa Gounder 2.Devayal 3.Thangavelu 4.K.K.Subramaniam ... Respondents PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the award and decree dated 23.01.2007 made in M.C.O.P.No.309 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Bhavani. For Appellant : Mr.S.Arunkumar - - - J U D G M E N T
The appellant / third respondent has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.309 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Bhavani.
2. The short facts of the case are as follows:-
The petitioners, who are the parents of the deceased Venkatachalam have filed the claim in M.C.O.P.No.309 of 2004, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- from the respondents for the death of the said Venkatachalam in a motor vehicle accident. It was submitted that on 16.06.2004, at about 2 a.m., when the (deceased) Venkatachalam, along with others, were travelling in the omni van bearing registration No.TN-07-D-1948, on the Annur-Sathyamangalam Road, from south to north and when the van was opposite to Allikulam Majid Doctor Thottam, the lorry bearing registration No.TN-33-X-6886, coming in the opposite direction and driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the van. As a result, the (deceased) Venkatachalam sustained grievous injuries on his head and died on the spot. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged 33 years and was working as an agriculturist. He was also a M.Com., PDGCA Graduate and was running a tuition centre and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Hence, the petitioners have filed the claim against the respondents 1 to 3, who are the driver, owner and insurer of the lorry.
3. The third respondent in his counter denied the averments in the claim that the lorry was insured with this respondent at the time of accident. It was submitted that the accident was caused only due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the omni van, who had driven the van on the wrong side of the road and dashed it against the lorry. The averments in the claim regarding age, income and occupation of the deceased was not admitted. It was submitted that the claim was excessive.
4. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal had framed two issues for consideration in the case, viz., "(i) Was the accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the first respondent?
(ii) Are the petitioners entitled to get compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation which they are entitled to get?"
5. On the petitioners side, Devayal, the second petitioner and mother of the deceased was examined as P.W.1 and 21 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P21, viz., Ex.P1-copy of F.I.R., Ex.P2-copy of wound certificate, Ex.P3-copy of observation mahazar, Ex.P4-copy of postmortem report, Ex.P5-copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report of lorry, Ex.P6-copy of charge sheet, Ex.P7-B.Com degree certificate, Ex.P8-M.Com degree certificate, Ex.P9-PGDCA certificate, Ex.P10-copy of school transfer certificate, Ex.P11-National Trade Certificate, Ex.P12-Employment Identity Card, Ex.P13-conduct certificate, Exs.P14 to P16-proficiency certificate in running races, Ex.P17-copy of patta in the name of the first petitioner, Ex.P18-copy of A register in the name of Karuppa Gounder, Ex.P19-Kandaya receipt, Ex.P20-copy of sale deed executed by Alicon Saibu in favour of Chinna Kalyana Gounder, Ex.P21-copy of 'adangal' account in the name of Karuppa Gounder. On the respondent's side, no witness, no documents.
6. P.W.1 had adduced evidence which is corroborative of the statements made in the claim regarding manner of accident and in support of his evidence, she had marked Exs.P1 to P21. On scrutiny of Ex.P1, it is seen that the F.I.R. has been registered against the first respondent based on the complaint given by one Gnanamurthi, who had also travelled in the van along with the deceased and sustained injuries. The averments in the F.I.R are on similar lines to the evidence of P.W.1 regarding manner of accident. On scrutiny of Ex.P6, it is seen that the police, after investigation have filed the charge sheet against the first respondent. Hence, the Tribunal, on scrutiny of Exs.P1 to P6, held that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the first respondent.
7. P.W.1 had further adduced evidence that her son was aged 33 years and he was a M.Com, P.G.D.C.A. Graduate and was working as an agriculturist and also running a tuition centre and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. However, as no documentary evidence had been marked to prove the income of the deceased, the Tribunal held that the notional income of the deceased could only be taken as Rs.3,000/- per month. The Tribunal, on deducting half of the income of the deceased for his personal expenses and on adopting a multiplier of '17', awarded a sum of Rs.3,06,000/- as compensation to the petitioner under the head of 'loss of income' (3000 x 1/2 x 12 x 17); Rs.50,000/- was awarded to each of the petitioners under the head of 'loss of love and affection; Rs.2,000/- for transport expenses and Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses. In total, the the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.4,13,000/- as compensation to the petitioners and directed the respondents 1 to 3 to jointly or severally deposit the said sum together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till date of payment of compensation, with costs, within one month from the date of its order.
8. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the third respondent / Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Erode has preferred the present appeal.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended in his appeal that the Tribunal, in the absence of documentary evidence, ought not to have assessed more than Rs.15,000/- per annum as income of the deceased. It was also contended that the Tribunal erred in adopting a multiplier of '17', without considering the age of the parents of deceased. It was also contended that the award granted for loss of income, loss of love and affection is excessive and hence, it was prayed to set-aside the award passed by the Tribunal.
10. On considering the factual position of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant 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. This Court is of the view that the deceased was aged 33 years and he was a M.Com, PGDCA graduate and was an earning member. Besides, the F.I.R. had been registered against the driver of the lorry and the said lorry had been insured with the insurance company. As such, the Tribunal had decided all the issues in an appropriate manner. Hence, this Court confirms the award passed by the Tribunal.
11. This Court directs the appellant / Insurance Company to deposit the entire compensation amount with added interest thereon, after deducting initial deposits made by them. After such a deposit had been made, it is open to the claimants to withdraw their apportioned share amount, with proportionate interest thereon, as per Tribunal's findings, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.309 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Bhavani, after filing a Memo, along with a copy of this order.
12. In the result, the above appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the order and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.309 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Bhavani, dated 23.01.2007 is confirmed. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
27.03.2013
Index : Yes.
Internet : Yes.
Note : The Registry is directed to send a copy of
this order to the first claimant's address
by RPAD on Court costs.
r n s
C.S.KARNAN, J.
r n s
To
The Sub Court,
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Bhavani.
C.M.A.No.1175 of 2013 &
M.P.No.1 of 2013
27.03.2013