Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2185 (MAD)

G. Rajamanickam & Another v. Rajendran & Others

2006-08-29

V.DHANAPALAN

body2006
Judgment :- (Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award passed in MCOP No.12 of 1997 on 29.04.1997 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Nagapattinam.) Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 29.04.1997 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Nagapattinam in M.C.O.P. No.12 of 1997, the owner of the car No.TCO 3708 and the Insurer of the car, have jointly preferred the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 2. In respect of death of their daughter aged 4 = years, the parents filed a Claim Petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.1 lakh. In support of their case, the father of the child, the first respondent herein was examined as P.W.1 and one Selvam was examined as P.W.2. In addition, First Information Report, Report of the Motor Vehicles Inspector and post-mortem certificate were marked as documentary evidence. 3. The case of the claimants before the Tribunal is as follows: On 15.01.1992, at 11.30 a.m., when the deceased was standing in the entrance of their house, a white Ambassador car bearing Registration No.TCO 3708, being driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased, thereby causing grievous injuries in her head and all over her body. Immediately, she was rushed to Tiruvarur Government Hospital and subsequently to Tanjore Medical College where she breathed last. It is their case that the accident occurred only because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car and hence, the respondents are liable to pay compensation of Rs.1 lakh. 4. On the other hand, the first respondent before the Tribunal who is the owner of the car, filed counter contending that he had sold the car on 26.12.1990 itself and as such, he is not the owner of the car on the date of accident i.e. On 15.01.1992. 5. Similarly, the second respondent before the Tribunal i.e. the Insurer of the car, also filed counter and contended that the car was not insured with it and the accident occurred only due to carelessness of the deceased and not because of the rash and negligent driving of the car driver as stated in the Claim Petition and in that view of the matter, the claimants are not entitled to receive compensation, which, in any event, is exorbitant. 6. 6. The Tribunal, on an analysis of the oral and documentary evidence before it, fixed the negligence on the part of the car driver and allowed the Claim Petition in full with interest at the rate of 12% per annum form the date of petition till the date of deposit. Aggrieved by this award of the Tribunal, the owner and the Insurer of the car, have jointly preferred this appeal. 7. Mr. S. Manohar, learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the Tribunal is not correct in awarding Rs.93,000/- for the death of a four year old child without assigning any reason and the award of compensation under other heads also is excessive. 8. Per contra, Ms. Sreedevi, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants has argued that the total compensation of Rs.1 lakh awarded by the Tribunal for the death of a 4 = year old child is only just and fair and need not be interfered with. 9. Heard both sides. 10. The only point emerging for consideration in this appeal is that whether the compensation of Rs.1 lakh awarded by the Tribunal is just and fair or not. 11. P.W.1, the father of the deceased, has deposed that his daughter was hale and healthy and was a bright student in her school and in fact, he had plans to make her a doctor and because of the accident, all his plans have been shattered and his family is in deep sorrow. 12. It can be presumed to what extent, the parents of the deceased would have been subject to grief due to the sudden demise of their daughter aged just 4 = years. As deposed by P.W.1, the would have certainly dreamt of educating their daughter and see her becoming a doctor and these aspects cannot be ignored. 13. The reliance placed by the counsel for the respondents/claimants on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar reported in 2001 ACJ 1735 in which, for the death of children in the age group of 5-10 years, the compensation of Rs.25,000/- fixed by the Tribunal was enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-, has much relevance to the facts of the case on hand. Hence, I am of the view that the award of compensation of Rs.93,000/- towards the death of 4 = year old daughter, Rs.2,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- for loss of love and affection granted by the Tribunal is just and fair and need not be interfered with. In the light of what has been stated above, the joint appeal preferred by the owner and Insurer fails and is dismissed without any order as to costs. Consequently, connected C.M.P. No.5849 of 1998 is also dismissed.