Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 3668 (MAD)

Annammal v. K. Velyuda Mudaliar

2013-10-21

C.S.KARNAN

body2013
Judgment : 1. The claimants stated that on 28.06.1999, at about 5.30 p.m., when the 1st claimant's husband namely Raji was proceeding on his bicycle on the Katpadi Main Road, the 1st respondent's lorry bearing Registration No.TN-23-A-5256, driven by its driver in a negligent manner, dashed against the said Raji. As a result, he had succumbed to his injuries. Hence, the claim petition has been filed against the respondents. 2. The United India Insurance Company Limited has filed a counter statement and additional counter statement and resisted the claim petition. The respondents denied the averments in the claim regarding age, income and occupation of the deceased. Further, the vehicle, lorry bearing Registration No.TN-23-A-5256, has not been covered under valid vehicular documents namely F.C., R.C. and Insurance Policy, Permit and Tax. The driver of the lorry did not possess a valid driving licence. Further, the accident had been committed by the negligence of the deceased, while he was riding his bicycle. The respondent further stated that the deceased was aged about 65 years and his income was not Rs.5,500/- per month, as alleged by claimants. 3. On recording the averments of both parties, the trial Court had framed three issues namely (1) Whether the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry? (2) Whether the claimants are entitled to receive compensation? and (3) If so, what is the quantum of compensation? On the side of the claimants, two witnesses were examined and 5 documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P5 namely: Ex.P1-F.I.R.; Ex.P2-Postmortem Certificate; Ex.P3-Charge sheet; Ex.P4-Judgment copy; and Ex.P5-Salary certificate. On the side of the respondents, one witness was examined and one document was marked namely claim form was marked as Ex.R1. 4. PW1 had adduced evidence that the deceased Raji was her husband and that he was aged about 50 years and had worked with Southern Railway as Gatekeeper and earning Rs.5,500/- per month as salary and that the other claimants are the sons and daughter of the deceased. PW1 further stated that on 28.06.1999, at about 5.30 p.m., when her husband was proceeding on his bicycle on the Katpadi Main road, the 1st respondent's driver had driven the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-23-A-5256 in a negligent manner and dashed it against her husband and that as a result, he had succumbed to his injuries. PW1 further stated that on 28.06.1999, at about 5.30 p.m., when her husband was proceeding on his bicycle on the Katpadi Main road, the 1st respondent's driver had driven the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-23-A-5256 in a negligent manner and dashed it against her husband and that as a result, he had succumbed to his injuries. PW1 further stated that all the claimants are the legal heirs of the deceased and in support of her evidence, she had marked the above mentioned documents. PW2, eyewitness had adduced evidence that he had witnessed the said accident and he stated that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry. 5. RW1 had adduced evidence that the lorry had been insured with his company and that the age of the deceased had not been proved. On recording the evidence of the witnesses and on scrutinising the documents marked by them, the trial Court had granted a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimants have filed the above appeal and have sought additional compensation of a sum of Rs.4,40,000/-. 6. The very competent counsel for the claimants argued that the deceased age was 55 years and he was working as a Railway Gatekeeper attached to the Southern Railway and that he was earning Rs.5,500/- per month as monthly salary. In order to prove the same, Salary Certificate was marked. To prove negligence and liability, Criminal Court Judgment and Insurance Policy were marked. All the claimants are 1st class legal heirs of the deceased and they were depending upon the income of the deceased, who was the sole breadwinner of the family. The Tribunal had not granted adequate compensation under the relevant heads namely loss of earning, loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, funeral expenses and transport. 7. This appeal has been filed in the year 2005. The Court notice has been served on the owner and Insurance Company. Even after receipt of the notices, neither parties have entered appearance to defend the appeal. Therefore, this Court is constrained to pass final order on the basis of available records. 8. 7. This appeal has been filed in the year 2005. The Court notice has been served on the owner and Insurance Company. Even after receipt of the notices, neither parties have entered appearance to defend the appeal. Therefore, this Court is constrained to pass final order on the basis of available records. 8. On considering the facts of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants and on scrutinising the trial Court's award, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the conclusions arrived at regarding negligence and liability. However, the quantum of compensation awarded is on the lower side. Therefore, this Court is inclined to grant additional compensation. Therefore, this Court reassess the compensation as follows:- “Rs.4,22,400/- (4,800X12X1/3X2X11) is awarded towards loss of income; Rs.10,000/-towards loss of consortium to the 1st claimant; Rs.30,000/- towards loss of love and affection to the other claimants; Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.10,000/-towards transport. In total, this Court awards Rs.4,82,400/- as compensation to the claimants, as it is found to be appropriate in the instant case. After deducting initial compensation of a sum of Rs.1,60,000/-, this Court awards Rs.3,22,400/- as additional compensation, as it is found to be appropriate in the instant case. This additional compensation will carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim till date of payment of compensation.” 9. This Court directs the 2nd respondent herein / United India Insurance Company Limited to execute this Court award, within a period of 4 weeks by way of depositing the award before the trial Court. Each of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th claimants are apportioned a sum of Rs.50,000/- with proportionate interest and the 1st claimant, the widow of the deceased is entitled to receive a sum of Rs.1,72,400/- with proportionate interest thereon. After such a deposit having been made, it is open to all the claimants to withdraw their apportioned share amount, with accrued interest thereon, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.934 of 2002, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Additional District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No.III), Ranipet, Vellore District, after filing a memo along with a copy of this order. 10. In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. 10. In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. Consequently, the Judgment and Decree, passed in M.C.O.P.No.934 of 2002, dated 05.11.2003, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Additional District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No.III), Ranipet, Vellore District is modified. No costs.