Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1027 (MAD)

Mannankatti & Another v. V. A. Sukkur & Another

2010-03-15

C.S.KARNAN

body2010
Judgment :- The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellants/petitioners against the Award and Decree, dated 04.02.2003, made in M.C.O.P.No.967 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court No.II, Ranipet, Vellore District, awarding a compensation of Rs.1,40,000/- with 9% 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 appellants/petitioners have filed the above appeal praying for additional compensation of Rs.90,000/-. 3. The short facts of the case are as follows: The petitioners have stated that their only son Velayudam, aged about 19 years was running a barber shop of his own and earning a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month and maintaining his aged parents and one unmarried sister. 4. While so, on 16.04.1999, at about 12.30 noon, when the petitioners son Velayudam was walking on the Vandavasi – Chetput road near Kozhiyur Village in between Endal Madura Ettihangal and Ettithangal Village, the ambassador car bearing registration No.TN09 B0565, driven by the first respondents driver, during the course of employment under the first respondent, at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the said Velayudham. As a result of the collision, the said Velayudham was thrown 10 feet away, sustained multiple injuries all over his body and died on the spot. The post-mortem of the (deceased) Velayudams body was conducted at the Government Hospital, Vandavasi. 5. Hence, the petitioners have claimed a compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- from the first respondent, the owner of the said car involved in the accident and the second respondent, its insurer, with interest and costs under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 6. Regarding the said accident, a criminal case has been registered at the Desur Police Station in Crime No.45/1999 as against the driver of the said car under Section 304(A) of I.P.C. 7. The second respondent, in his Counter, which was adopted by the first respondent as well, had resisted the claim stating that the age, occupation and income of the deceased, prior to the accident, has to be proved, through documentary evidence. The manner of the accident, as alleged in the claim has also not been admitted by the respondent. The second respondent, in his Counter, which was adopted by the first respondent as well, had resisted the claim stating that the age, occupation and income of the deceased, prior to the accident, has to be proved, through documentary evidence. The manner of the accident, as alleged in the claim has also not been admitted by the respondent. It has been stated that the accident happened due to negligence of the deceased and was not due to any negligence on the part of the driver of the first respondents car. As such, the second respondent has submitted that he is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. It has also been submitted that the claim is excessive and has to be dismissed with costs. 8. On the petitioners side, the first petitioner was examined as PW1 and one eye witness Kannan was examined as PW2 and six documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P6. On the side of the respondents the Assistant Administrative Officer of the respondent company was examined as RW1 and two documents were marked as Exs.R1 and R2. 9. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed three issues for the consideration namely: (i) Whether the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent? (ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to get compensation as claimed by them? (iii) If so, what is the quantum of compensation, which they are entitled to get? 10. PW2, Kannan, in his evidence has deposed that on the date of accident, he was working in his field and had seen the (deceased) Velayudham coming towards his land. At that time, the respondents car had hit the (deceased) Velayudham. When he went near Velayudham, he saw that Velayudham had died; he had immediately informed the Village Administrative Officer, who had filed the complaint to the Police and an FIR was registered, which has been marked as Ex.P1. 11. On scrutiny of Ex.P1, it is seen that the informant was not award of the registration number of the car involved in the accident. It had been stated that the car had hit against the deceased and consequently his body had been thrown 10 feet away. Ex.P4 is the Judgment Copy, wherein it is seen that a fine of Rs.5,925/-has been imposed on the driver of the car by the Criminal Court. 12. The owner, R1, was set exparte. It had been stated that the car had hit against the deceased and consequently his body had been thrown 10 feet away. Ex.P4 is the Judgment Copy, wherein it is seen that a fine of Rs.5,925/-has been imposed on the driver of the car by the Criminal Court. 12. The owner, R1, was set exparte. On the second respondents side, the Senior Law Officer of their concern, Dakshinamoorthy was examined as RW1. The RW1 submitted a statment made by the driver of the car as Ex.R2. On scrutiny of the Ex.R2, it is seen that as Velayudham was going towards his land, with his bull, on the road, the bull got panicky and the deceased while trying to control the bull had come into contact with the moving car. Ex.P3 is the Motor Vehicle Inspectors Report, wherein it is seen that the accident had not occurred due to mechanical defects in the said car. 13. The Tribunal, on consideration of the evidence on record, were of the opinion that the bull must have got panicky due to the rash driving of the car by its driver and accordingly held that the accident had been caused due to the rash and negligent manner of driving the car by its driver. 14. Ex.P8 is the Legal Heir Certificate showing that the deceased left behind his parents, who are his father aged about 50 years and mother aged about 46 years. As per the oral evidence of the petitioner, he has stated that he has two other sons and that they are professional barbers. Ex.P7 is the Community Certificate. Ex.P5 is the Certificate given by the Village Administrative Officer, showing that the said Velayudham had a small barber shop and was running it. Ex.P6 is the tax receipts for the month of February and March, 1999. On scrutiny of the Ex.P2, the Post-Mortem Certificate of the deceased, it is evident that the deceased Velayudham was aged about 18 years at the time of accident. 15. The Tribunal were of the opinion that as the petitioner had two other sons, who were also practising the same community business and as he was also a barber, the petitioners could not be considered as being totally dependent on the deceased. 15. The Tribunal were of the opinion that as the petitioner had two other sons, who were also practising the same community business and as he was also a barber, the petitioners could not be considered as being totally dependent on the deceased. The Tribunal, on considering that the deceased Velayudham was an unmarried young boy and could have contributed some amount of money to his family held that the deceased could have contributed Rs.1,200/- to his family every month and a sum of Rs.14,400/-every year. Adopting a multiplier of 10, as was relevant to the age of the unmarried boy of 18 years, the Tribunal assessed the total loss of income to the petitioners as Rs.1,44,000/- but considering that the petitioners are getting the award in 1 lumpsum, they rounded off the award to Rs.1,25,000/-and granted this as compensation under the head of loss of dependency. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-under the head of loss of love and affection and a sum of Rs.5,000/- under the head of funeral expenses, as compensation to the petitioners. In total, the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- as compensation to the petitioners and directed the second respondent to deposit the said award together with interest at the rate of 9% 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.967 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court No.II, Ranipet, Vellore District, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of its Order. The Tribunal further apportioned the award and accrued interest equally amongst the petitioners. The Advocate fees was fixed at Rs.5,800/-and the second respondent was directed to pay the cost of Rs.8,324/- to the petitioners. 16. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants has contended in his appeal that the Tribunal after having held that the deceased was running a barber shop on the basis of Exs.P5 and P6 ought to have held that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month and would have contributed a sum of Rs.2,500/- per month to the appellants herein and computed the compensation accordingly. It has also been contended that the Tribunal after having held that the deceased was aged 18 years erred in adopting 10 as the multiplier instead of a multiplier of 16 to assess compensation as per the schedule and ought to have awarded compensation accordingly. It has also been pointed out that the Tribunal should have awarded more compensation under the head of loss of love and affection. As such, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that the award granted by the Tribunal is on the lower side and has sought an additional compensation of Rs.90,000/-. 17. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and after hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, scrutiny of findings of the Tribunal, this Court is of the view that the award amount of Rs.1,40,000/-granted as compensation by the Tribunal, together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum is on the lower side, considering that the deceased was running a barber shop. Hence, this Court has fixed the notional income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/-per month. After deducing 1/3rd share of this amount for his personal expenses, this Court assesses the compensation as Rs.2,000/- X 12 X 10 = Rs.2,40,000/- under the head of loss of income. Already, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- under the head of loss of love and affection and a sum of Rs.5,000/-under the head of funeral expenses. This Court confirms the award granted under the above two heads. In total, this Court awards a compensation of Rs.2,55,000/-. The Tribunal had awarded a compensation of Rs.1,40,000/- to the claimants and hence this Court has awarded an additional compensation of Rs.1,15,000/-to the claimants. But, the claimants had restricted their claim in the appeal to Rs.90,000/-. Accordingly, this Court grants an additional award amount of Rs.90,000/-to the claimants, together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation. But, the claimants had restricted their claim in the appeal to Rs.90,000/-. Accordingly, this Court grants an additional award amount of Rs.90,000/-to the claimants, together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation. Therefore, this Court directs the second respondent to deposit the additional compensation amount of Rs.90,000/-together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation, into the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.967 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court No.II, Ranipet, Vellore District, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this Order. 18. It is open to the claimants to withdraw the additional compensation amount apportioned equally, with accrued interest thereon after such deposit has been made into the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.967 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court No.II, Ranipet, Vellore District, after filing necessary payment out application, in accordance with law. 19. In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the Award and Decree, dated 04.02.2003, in M.C.O.P.No.967 of 2002, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court No.II, Ranipet, Vellore District, is modified. There is no order as to costs.