Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 3876 (MAD)

United India Insurance v. Thirumammal

2013-11-11

C.S.KARNAN

body2013
Judgment 1. The appellant/2nd respondent has preferred the present appeal in C.M.A.No.1077 of 2008, against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.415 of 1998, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional District and Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer), Coimbatore. 2. The short facts of the case are as follows:- The petitioner, who is the mother of the deceased Ravichandran has filed the claim in M.C.O.P.No.415 of 1998, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.6,45,000/- from the respondents for the death of the said Ravichandran in a Motor Vehicle Accident. It was submitted that on 15.01.1997, the petitioner was travelling with her (deceased) son and relatives in a Mahendra Mini Bus bearing Registration No.TN-37-H-8892 from Thirumala-Tirupathi to Mettupalayam and at about 3.20 a.m., when they were proceeding on the Mettur Bhavani road, near Kombur bridge, the driver of the van drove it in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed and dashed it against the wall of a bridge. As a result, the vehicle was thrown down into a ditch and turned upside down. As a result, the driver died on the spot and all other passengers sustained multiple grievous injuries. The (deceased) Ravichandran sustained grievous injuries on his head and other parts of his body. He was admitted at Government Hospital, Erode, wherein first aid was given and subsequently admitted at Ganga Hospital on 15.01.1997, later on, he received treatment at Kongunadu Hospital and then at Ramakrishna Hospital, wherein he received treatment for 9 days as an inpatient till 23.01.1997. He was then admitted at Kovai Medical Centre Hospital, wherein he received treatment, as an inpatient for 18 days, but in spite of medical treatment, he succumbed to his injuries on 09.02.1997. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged 32 years and was working at PRICOL and earning Rs.5,000/- per month. It was submitted that the wife of the deceased left the matrimonial house, with her child, abandoning the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has filed the claim against the respondents 1 to 4. The respondents 1 and 2 are the owner and insurer of the Mini Bus bearing Registration No.TN-37-H-8892. The 3rd and 4th respondents are the wife and minor daughter of the (deceased) Ravichandran. 3. Hence, the petitioner has filed the claim against the respondents 1 to 4. The respondents 1 and 2 are the owner and insurer of the Mini Bus bearing Registration No.TN-37-H-8892. The 3rd and 4th respondents are the wife and minor daughter of the (deceased) Ravichandran. 3. The 2nd respondent, in his counter has submitted that the petitioners have to prove that the driver of the 1st respondent's vehicle had a valid licence and that the vehicle was covered under a valid policy of insurance with the 2nd respondent at the time of accident. The averments in the claim regarding age, income, occupation of deceased, nature of injuries sustained, medical expenses incurred was not admitted. It was submitted that the petitioners have to prove that they are the legal heirs of the deceased through documentary evidence. It was submitted that the claim was excessive. 4. The 3rd and 4th respondents in their counter has denied the averments in the claim that the petitioner and her husband borrowed a huge sum of Rs.2,50,000/- for payment of medical expenses of the (deceased). It was submitted that the 3rd respondent had raised loan from the relatives and that the father-in-law of the deceased had contributed Rs.1,00,000/- after pledging his land with Bricks Company at Dhaliyur, Pannimadai Village, Coimbatore. It was submitted that the 3rd respondent left her matrimonial house due to the ill-treatment meted out by the petitioner. It was submitted that as the respondents 3 and 4 are the legal heirs of the deceased, the respondents 1 and 2 are liable to also pay compensation to them. 5. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal framed two issues for consideration in the case namely (1) Whether the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the 1st respondent's van bearing Registration No.TN-37-H-8892? and (2) Whether the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 are entitled to get compensation? If so, what is the quantum? 6. 5. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal framed two issues for consideration in the case namely (1) Whether the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the 1st respondent's van bearing Registration No.TN-37-H-8892? and (2) Whether the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 are entitled to get compensation? If so, what is the quantum? 6. On the petitioner's side, the petitioner was examined as PW1 and 10 documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P10 namely Ex.P1-Copy of F.I.R. dated 15.01.1997; Ex.P2-Discharge summary issued by Kongunad Hospital dated 23.01.1997; Ex.P3-Postmortem certificate dated 09.02.1997; Ex.P4-Legal Heirship Certificate dated 06.03.1997; Ex.P5-List of Bills; Ex.P6-Xerox copies of returned petition and connected records in Cr.No.23/97 dated 19.11.2002; Ex.P7-Letter for authorising G.Nagarajan to depose as witness in the Court dated 03.04.2006; Ex.P8-Salary certificate issued by PRICOL Company dated 14.03.1997; Ex.P9-Extract of bonus details given to the deceased Ravichandran given by Pricol Limited dated 28.03.2006; and Ex.P10-Salary certificate dated 28.03.2006. On the respondents' side, one Asokan was examined as RW1; one Arunagiri was examined as RW2 and the 3rd respondent namely Bharathi was examined as RW3 and two documents were marked as Exhibits R1 and R2 namely Ex.R1-Policy particulars; and Ex.R2-Authority for issuing licence dated 05.06.2007. 7. PW1 had adduced evidence which is corroborative of the statements made in the claim regarding manner of accident and in support of her evidence, she had marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P10. 8. RW1 Ashokan, the Branch Manager of the 2nd respondent firm had adduced evidence that one Vijayakumar had driven the 1st respondent's van at the time of accident. RW2 Arunagiri, Junior Assistant in the Motor Vehicle Inspector's office at Puthukottai had also adduced evidence that no licence was granted in respect of driving licence No.2525/95. 9. The Tribunal observed that the 2nd respondent had not examined any investigating officer to verify whether the 1st respondent alone filed the claim without proving that Vijayakumar was the driver of the vehicle. Further, the Tribunal observed that the 2nd respondent had not filed any records to show whether the driving licence bearing No.2525/95 belongs to either Rangaraj or Vijayakumar. Hence, the Tribunal opined that the 2nd respondent had failed to prove that the driver of the 1st respondent's van did not have a valid driving licence. Further, the Tribunal observed that the 2nd respondent had not filed any records to show whether the driving licence bearing No.2525/95 belongs to either Rangaraj or Vijayakumar. Hence, the Tribunal opined that the 2nd respondent had failed to prove that the driver of the 1st respondent's van did not have a valid driving licence. Hence, the Tribunal, on scrutiny of oral and documentary evidence held that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the 1st respondent's van. 10. PW1 had further adduced evidence that her son was working in PRICOL and earned a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month. PW2 Nagarajan, an Officer in PRICOL adduced evidence that the deceased received a salary of Rs.3,487.96/- as salary for the month of October 1983 under Ex.P8 and the bonus particulars as per Ex.P9. He had also marked the salary of the deceased in the year 2006, as per Ex.P10. The Tribunal however observed that no records have been filed to show that the person Ravichandran, mentioned in the exhibits marked and the deceased are under the same category. The Tribunal, on observing that the medical bills were filed only by PW1, awarded a sum of Rs.2,10,000/- as compensation for medical expenses and payable to PW1. The Tribunal on taking the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- and on adopting a multiplier of 15, awarded a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- (5,000X2/3X12X15) as compensation under the head of loss of income; Rs.5,000/- was awarded for funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- towards transport charges; Rs.10,000/- was awarded to each of the petitioners and the 3rd respondent for loss of love and affection and loss of consortium. In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.8,40,000/- as compensation and directed the 2nd respondent, to pay the said sum together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum (from 22.07.2003 to 17.06.2004 and from 08.02.2006 till date of payment of compensation), with costs. 11. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent/United India Insurance Company Limited, Coimbatore has preferred the present appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended in his appeal that the Tribunal erred in taking monthly income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month without any documentary proof. 11. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent/United India Insurance Company Limited, Coimbatore has preferred the present appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended in his appeal that the Tribunal erred in taking monthly income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month without any documentary proof. It was submitted that the Tribunal erred in fixing the multiplier of 15, without considering the age of the parents of the deceased and erred in awarding a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- under the head of loss of income. It was contended that the Tribunal failed to consider the evidence of RW2, a witness from the R.T.O., who had clearly deposed that the driver of the Mini Bus did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of accident. Hence, it was prayed to set aside the award passed by the Tribunal. 12. The highly competent counsel for the claimant submits that the deceased met with an accident on 15.01.1997 and he had expired on 09.02.1997 then receiving medical treatment at various hospitals. As such, the claimant had spent about Rs.2,50,000/- for medical expenses. Further, the deceased was aged about 32 years and he was working in a reputed company and earning more than Rs.5,000/- per month. The claimant's husband also had expired immediately after the death of her son and as such the widowed mother i.e. the claimant is in a destitute condition without any support. The learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal had assessed the compensation in an appropriate manner after considering the F.I.R., Medical bills, Insurance policy and Salary certificate. As such, there is no lacuna in the impugned award. 13. On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and on perusing the impugned award of the Tribunal, 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 higher side. 13. On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and on perusing the impugned award of the Tribunal, 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 higher side. Therefore, this Court modifies the compensation as follows:- This Court on taking the income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month and on adopting a multiplier of 15 awards a sum of Rs.5,40,000/- (4,500X2/3X12X15) as compensation under the head of loss of income; Rs.2,10,000/- is awarded for medical expenses; Rs.10,000/- is awarded to the 3rd respondent under the head of loss of consortium; Rs.10,000/- is awarded to each of the petitioner and the 4th respondent under the head of loss of love and affection; Rs.10,000/- is awarded for funeral expenses; Rs.10,000/- is awarded for transport expenses. In total, this Court awards Rs.8,00,000/- as compensation to the claimant and the 3rd and 4th respondents. This Court apportions a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- to the claimant and Rs.1,00,000/- each to the 3rd respondent and 4th respondent (since she attained majority). The rate of interest fixed by the Tribunal remains unaltered. 14. This Court directed the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.6,45,000/- with accrued interest. Now, this Court directs the appellant to pay the balance compensation amount, as per this Court's modified order, with interest, within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 15. After such a deposit having been made, it is open to the claimants to withdraw their apportioned share amount with proportionate interest thereon, as per the ratio fixed by this Court, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.415 of 1998, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District and Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer) at Coimbatore, after filing a memo along with a copy of this order, subject to deduction of withdrawals made, if any, as per this Court's earlier order. 16.In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. Consequently, the Award and Decree, passed in M.C.O.P.No.415 of 1998, dated 06.08.2007, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District and Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer) at Coimbatore, is modified. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.