Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2304 (MAD)

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Valarmathi

2012-06-07

R.KARUPPIAH

body2012
JUDGMENT:- 1. The appellant Insurance Company has filed this appeal challenging the quantum of compensation alone awarded in MCOP No.446/2002 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal Sub Court), Tindivanam, dated 29.4.2003. 2. The respondents 1 to 3 who are claimants in the above said O.P., have filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.10 lakhs for the death of one Dheenadhayalan in the motor accident that occurred on 4.3.2002. The case of the claimants is that on 4.3.2002, the deceased went to Villupuram Alagappa Temple by walk and on the same direction, the Car bearing Registration No. TN 32/Y 0477 was driven by its driver in high speed and dashed against the deceased and he sustained injuries and died in the Government Hospital, Cuddalore and the accident was only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car of the fourth respondent/first respondent in O.P. and the age of the deceased is 45 years and he was working as blue metal crush driver and earned Rs.5,000/- per month and the claimants are wife, daughter and son of the deceased respectively and hence they claimed a compensation of Rs.10 lakhs. 3. The owner of the vehicle, namely fourth respondent/first respondent in O.P., remained ex-parte in the main O.P. On the side of the appellant/second respondent Insurance Company, it was contended before the Tribunal that they denied the above said alleged accident as stated in the claim petition and the claimants should prove all the allegations in the claim petition and further contended that the amount of compensation claimed is excessive. 4. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants, they have examined two witnesses as P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked six documents as Exs.P1 to P6 and on the side of the appellant/second respondent Insurance Company, it has not examined any witness and a copy of the policy alone is marked as Ex.R1. 5. On consideration of the above said oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has discussed in detail and held that the accident has occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the Car driver and therefore, the owner and insurer of the vehicle are liable to pay compensation. 6. 5. On consideration of the above said oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has discussed in detail and held that the accident has occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the Car driver and therefore, the owner and insurer of the vehicle are liable to pay compensation. 6. On the side of the claimants, P.W.2 was examined as eyewitness to the accident and Exs.P1 copy of FIR, P2 copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector's report, Ex.P3 copy of charge sheet, and Ex.P4 copy of criminal Court's judgment, were also marked. The above said oral and documentary evidence would clearly prove that the accident has occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the car driver and there is no contra evidence on the side of the appellant. Therefore, the Tribunal has correctly held that the accident has occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the car driver. 7. With regard to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal has fixed the age of the deceased as 45 years on the basis of Ex.P5, postmortem certificate, and the oral evidence of P.W.1. The above said fact is not seriously disputed. With regard to the monthly income of the deceased, the claimants have claimed Rs.5,000/- per month; but, the Tribunal in paragraph No.12 of its award, after considering Ex.P6 salary certificate, and the evidence, came to the conclusion and fixed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/-. But subsequently, at the time of calculation in paragraph No.14, the Tribunal has wrongly mentioned it as Rs.5,000/-per month instead of Rs.4,000/- and calculated the award amount. As regards the monthly income of the deceased, considering the above said document Ex.P6 and the oral evidence and the reasoning given by the Tribunal, the monthly income fixed as Rs.4,000/-, is correct and no interference is called for in respect of the above said finding. 8. In this case, total claimants are three in number and therefore, 1/3 is to be deducted for personal and living expenses of the deceased. Since the age of the deceased is 45 years, as per Sarla Verma case ((2009) 6 SUPREME COURT CASES 121), 14 multiplier is to be taken and on that basis, the loss of income comes to Rs.4,48,000/-i.e., Rs.4,000/- x 12 x 14 / 1/3. Since the age of the deceased is 45 years, as per Sarla Verma case ((2009) 6 SUPREME COURT CASES 121), 14 multiplier is to be taken and on that basis, the loss of income comes to Rs.4,48,000/-i.e., Rs.4,000/- x 12 x 14 / 1/3. Learned Counsel for the respondents 1 to 3/claimants has contended that the Tribunal has awarded meagre amounts under other heads and therefore, for just and reasonable compensation, prayed for enhancement of the amounts under other heads. As already stated, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.2,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.2,000/-for consortium. Admittedly, the first claimant is the wife and claimants 2 and 3 are minor children of the deceased. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that Rs.10,000/- is to be awarded to first claimant towards consortium and Rs.10,000/-each to be awarded to the claimants 2 and 3 for loss of love and affection and the funeral expenses also to be increased as Rs.5,000/-and therefore, the award of compensation is reduced and modified as under: Loss of income Rs.4,000/- x 12 x 14 / 1/3 Rs.4,48,000 Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000 Consortium for first Claimant Rs. 10,000 Loss of love and affection Rs. 20,000 Total Rs.4,83,000 9. In the result, this civil miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed and the amount of compensation is reduced and fixed as Rs.4,83,000/-. The interest awarded by the Tribunal, will hold good. It is reported that the entire award amount has already been deposited by the appellant and a portion of the amount has already been withdrawn by the claimants. The first claimant is permitted to withdraw the remaining share amount fixed in this appeal, and the share amounts of claimants 2 and 3/respondents 2 and 3 are ordered to be deposited in a Nationalised Bank as per apportionment given by the Tribunal, till they attain majority and the excess amount is permitted to be withdrawn by the appellant Insurance Company. No costs.