Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 122 (MAD)

National Insurance v. R. Ravi Sankar

2014-01-20

C.S.KARNAN

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. On 09.02.2005, at about 6.30 p.m., when the petitioner and his wife namely Chitra were proceeding on the motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-10-C-2102, on the Kodambakkam High Road, the lorry bearing Registration No.OR-07-G-2222, driven at a high speed, in the same direction, dashed behind the motorcycle. As a result, the petitioner's wife had sustained injuries and succumbed to it and the petitioner sustained injuries. The claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.152 of 2002 has been filed by the petitioner claiming compensation for the death of his wife. 2. The Insurance Company had filed counter statement and resisted the claim petition. The respondent denied the averments in the claim that the accident had been committed by the driver of the lorry. It was submitted that the rider of the motorcycle had attempted to overtake a lorry and came on to the wrong side of the road and caused the accident due to his negligence. The averments in the claim regarding age, income and occupation of the deceased was not admitted. 3. On considering the averments of both parties, the trial Court had framed 3 issues namely (1) Whether the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent's vehicle driver? (2) Whether the claimants are entitled to receive compensation? and (3) If so, what is the quantum of compensation? 4. On the side of the claimant, the 1st petitioner was examined as PW1 and 5 documents were marked namely F.I.R., Postmortem Certificate, Death Certificate, Legal heir certificate and Last pay drawn salary certificate. On the side of the respondents, no witness, no documentary evidence. PW1 had adduced evidence that on 09.02.2005, at about 6.30 p.m., when he was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-10-C-2102, along with his wife as pillion rider, on the Kodambakkam High Road, the 1st respondent's lorry bearing Registration No.OR-07-G-2222, driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver and at a high speed, dashed behind the motorcycle. As a result, his wife sustained injuries and succumbed to it and he had sustained grievous injuries. The 2nd and 3rd claimants are the sons of the deceased. The deceased was aged 52 years and she was earning Rs.10,411/- as monthly salary as a Lower Division Clerk attached to the Regional Passport Office. 5. As a result, his wife sustained injuries and succumbed to it and he had sustained grievous injuries. The 2nd and 3rd claimants are the sons of the deceased. The deceased was aged 52 years and she was earning Rs.10,411/- as monthly salary as a Lower Division Clerk attached to the Regional Passport Office. 5. On considering the evidence of the witnesses and on perusing the documents, marked by the claimants, the trial Court had granted a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation, with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. 6. Against the award and decree, the National Insurance Company Limited had filed the above appeal and the claimants have filed a Cross Objection in Cross Obj. No.12 of 2009 and have sought additional compensation since they are not satisfied with the quantum of compensation. 7. The highly competent counsel Mr. M.Krishnamoorthy for the Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal had awarded compensation of a sum of Rs.7,00,000/-, which is on the higher side. Further, the rider of the motorcycle had negligently tried to overtake a lorry and caused the said accident. As such, contributory negligence has to be attributed in the instant case. 8. The very competent counsel for the claimants, vehemently argued that the F.I.R. had been registered against the driver of the lorry. The said lorry had been insured with the Insurance Company. The deceased was aged 52 years. In order to prove the same, the application had been given wherein date of birth has been mentioned as 19.07.1952 and she was working as a Upper Division Clerk attached to the Regional Passport Office, Chennai and was earning a sum of Rs.10,411/- as monthly salary. As such, the multiplier of 11 has to be adopted in assessing compensation but the Tribunal had adopted a multiplier of 8. The trial Court had not granted adequate compensation under the head of loss of love and affection to the minor children of the deceased and had also not granted award for funeral expenses. Hence, the very competent counsel entreats the Court to enhance compensation. 9. On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels 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. Hence, the very competent counsel entreats the Court to enhance compensation. 9. On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels 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 is on the lower side, since the multiplier to be adopted in the present case is 11 instead of 8. Further, there is no crystal clear discussion regarding statutory deductions made in the salary of the deceased. Under the circumstances, this Court holds the income of the deceased as Rs.9,000/- per month. This Court, on adopting a multiplier of 11, awards a sum of Rs.7,92,000/- (9000X2/3X12X11) as compensation under the head of loss of income; Rs.10,000/- is awarded for loss of consortium; Rs.10,000/- is awarded to each of the minor claimants under the head of loss of love and affection; Rs.10,000/- is awarded for funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- is awarded for transport. In total, this Court awards Rs.8,42,000/- as compensation as it is found to be appropriate in the instant case. After subtracting initial compensation of a sum of Rs.7,00,000/-, this Court awards Rs.1,42,000/- as additional compensation. This amount will carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim till date of payment of compensation. 10. This Court directs the National Insurance Company Limited herein to deposit the additional compensation amount, with accumulated interest thereon, as per this Court's findings, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order, before the trial Court. After such a deposit having been made, the 1st claimant is entitled to receive a sum of Rs.42,000/- with proportionate interest thereon and each of the 2nd and 3rd claimants are entitled to receive a sum of Rs.50,000/- with proportionate interest thereon, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.152 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional & District Judge, Fast Track Court No.IV) at Poonamallee, after filing a memo along with a copy of this order. 11. In the result, the appeal in C.M.A.NO.3666 of 2008 filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed and the Cross Objection in Cross Objection No.12 of 2009 filed by the claimants is partly allowed. 11. In the result, the appeal in C.M.A.NO.3666 of 2008 filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed and the Cross Objection in Cross Objection No.12 of 2009 filed by the claimants is partly allowed. Consequently, the Judgment and Decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.152 of 2005, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional & District Judge, Fast Track Court No.IV) at Poonamallee, dated 09.11.2006, is modified. No costs.