Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 3455 (MAD)

Lakshmi v. V. Nagarajan

2013-09-24

C.S.KARNAN

body2013
Judgment : The brief facts of the case are as follows : – The claimant had filed MCOP No.309 of 1994, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Tiruppathur, against the owner and insurer of the lorry bearing registration No.TAP 1453 stating that the husband was working as cleaner in the said lorry. On 22.02.1994, the driver of the lorry had driven the lorry in a rash and negligent manner on Palnangkuppam Road and dashed against a tree. As a result, her husband had sustained injuries and succumbed to it. Hence, the claim has been filed. 2. The Insurance company had filed counter statement and resisted the claim petition. The respondent submitted that the said lorry had not been insured with his company. Further, the accident had not been caused during the course of employment of the deceased. The respondent denied the averments in the claim regarding age, income and occupation of the deceased. Further, the accident is not covered under the Motor Vehicles Act. 3. On considering the averments of both parties, the Tribunal had framed four issues, namely, (1) whether the accident had been caused by the negligent driving by the driver of the lorry? (2) Did the lorry driver have a valid licence at the time of accident? (3) was the lorry insured with the insurance company? (4) whether the claimant is entitled to get compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation?. 4. On the side of the claimant, she was examined as P.W.1 and three documents were marked, namely, judgment copy of criminal court, postmortem report, copy of insurance policy. On the side of the respondent, one witness was examined and six documents were marked, namely, letter sent by Insurance Company to owner, Acknowledgement card, Advocate notice sent by Insurance Company to owner, returned cover, Motor Vehicles Inspector's Report and letter sent by Insurance Company. 5. P.W.1 had adduced evidence that on 22.02.1994, at about 09.30 p.m, when her husband was travelling in the first respondent's lorry bearing registration No. TAP 1453, the driver of the lorry had driven it in a rash and negligent manner on the Palnangkuppam road and dashed it against a tree. P.W.1 further stated that her husband was travelling as a cleaner in the said lorry, and he was aged about 27 years. She further adduced evidence that her husband was earning Rs.1500/- per month. P.W.1 further stated that her husband was travelling as a cleaner in the said lorry, and he was aged about 27 years. She further adduced evidence that her husband was earning Rs.1500/- per month. R.W.1 had adduced evidence that the insurance company had sent a letter and advocate notice to the owner of the vehicle, but inspite of it they did not respond to it. In support of his contentions he had marked the above documents. 6. On recording the evidence of both parties, and on scrutinizing the documents marked by them, the Tribunal had assessed the compensation at Rs.2,59,000/-, as the claimant had claimed Rs.1,00,000/-only, the Tribunal had awarded Rs.1,00,000/-as compensation. Not being satisfied with the award granted by the Tribunal, the claimant had filed the above civil miscellaneous appeal and has sought compensation of the originally assessed sum i.e., Rs.2,59,000/-. 7. The learned counsel for the claimant submits that the deceased was 27 years and the claimant's age was 20 years and she is an young widow and in a deserted condition. The claimant was a cleaner and earning Rs.1500/-per month. The claimant was depending upon the income of the deceased, who was the sole breadwinner of the family. The claimant is an illiterate lady and does not know about the proceedings and legalities involved in filing the claim petition and had mistakenly filed the claim for a lower amount. 8. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company argued that the claim petition is not maintainable before the Tribunal. As per the contentions of the claimants, her husband was employed as cleaner under the first respondent's lorry and the accident had happened in the course of employment. Therefore, the remedy of the claimant is only before the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation. Further, the appeal has been filed as an after thought, in order to get more gain. 9. On verifying the factual position of the case, and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side, and on perusing the impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal had assessed the compensation on the basis of age, income and occupation of the deceased in an appropriate manner and assessed it at a sum of Rs.2,59,000/-. This assessment of compensation is reasonable considering the facts of the case. This assessment of compensation is reasonable considering the facts of the case. Therefore, the young widow, aged about 20 years/claimant is entitled to receive the balance assessed compensation i.e., Rs.1,59,000/-. This amount will carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation. This Court directs the New India Assurance Company Limited to comply with this order, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgement, by way of depositing the amount before the Tribunal. 10. After such a deposit having been made, it is open to the claimant to withdraw the entire compensation amount, with interest thereon, lying in the credit of MCOP No.309 of 1994 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirupattur. 11. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. Consequently, the Award and Decree, passed in MCOP No.309 of 1994 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirupattur is modified. No costs.