Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 134 (MAD)

New India Assurance v. Sakuntala

2014-01-21

C.S.KARNAN

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. On 02.05.1990, at about 03.30 p.m., when the deceased Kannan was proceeding on a bicycle on the Timiri Kalavai Road, along with one Ramu, the bus bearing registration No.TOH-959, driven by its driver in a negligent manner, dashed against the deceased Kannan. As a result, he sustained injuries and succumbed to it. Hence, the claim petition had been initiated by the legal heir of the deceased against the owner and insurer of the bus. 2. The Insurance Company had filed a counter statement and resisted the claim petition. The averments in the claim that the accident had been caused by the driver of the bus was not admitted. Actually, the deceased had committed the said accident due to his own negligence. The bus had not been covered by valid vehicle documents to operate on the public road. The driver of the bus did not possess a valid driving licence. The respondent further denied the averments in the claim regarding age, income and occupation of the deceased. 3. On considering the averments of both parties, the trial Court had framed 2 issues namely (1) Due to whose negligence was the accident caused?; (2) Whether the claimants are entitled to receive compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation? 4. On the side of the claimants, three witnesses were examined and two documents were marked namely F.I.R., Postmortem Certificate. On the side of the respondent, one witness was examined and no document was marked. 5. PW1, wife of the deceased had also spoken on the same lines of PW.2 regarding manner of accident. RW.1, had adduced evidence that he is not aware of the fact that the said bus had been ensured with them. 6. On considering the evidence of the witnesses and on perusing the documents marked by the claimants, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.1,85,000/- as compensation, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. 7. Against the said award and decree, the Insurance Company has filed the above appeal. 8. The highly competent counsel, Mr. K. Padmanabhan for the appellant, submits that the claimant had not produced the vehicular documents, Insurance particulars, owner and driver particulars before the trial Court to prove their case against the Insurance Company without these authenticated documents, the trial Court had awarded compensation, which is erroneous. 8. The highly competent counsel, Mr. K. Padmanabhan for the appellant, submits that the claimant had not produced the vehicular documents, Insurance particulars, owner and driver particulars before the trial Court to prove their case against the Insurance Company without these authenticated documents, the trial Court had awarded compensation, which is erroneous. The claimants 2, 3 and 4 are not dependents on the income of the deceased. Further, the vehicle had not been involved in the said accident and the claimant had not disclosed the stage of the Criminal case. Further, the age of the deceased was more than 60 years and he had already retired from his agricultural work and as such he was not a earning member. 9. The very competent counsel for the claimants vehemently argued that the deceased was an agriculturist and he was earning Rs.5,000/- per month and that all the claimants are legal heirs of the deceased and depending upon the income of the deceased, who was the breadwinner of the family. The Insurance Company is also equally responsible to produce the Insurance particulars of the bus before the Trial Court. Further, the Criminal case had been levelled against the driver of the bus. Further, the respondent had not denied that the vehicle was insured with their company. 10. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent argued that the trial Court had not granted an adequate compensation to the claimants under heads of loss of income, loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, funeral expenses, transport and loss of estate, since the case has been proved against the Insurance Company beyond doubt. 11. 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, liability and quantum of compensation. This Court is of the view that the Trial Court had framed necessary issues and decided the same in an appropriate manner, after recording oral evidence and on scrutinizing the exhibits marked by the claimants. As such, the impugned award is found to be suitable for execution. This Court directed the appellant to deposit the entire compensation with interest. 12. This Court is of the view that the Trial Court had framed necessary issues and decided the same in an appropriate manner, after recording oral evidence and on scrutinizing the exhibits marked by the claimants. As such, the impugned award is found to be suitable for execution. This Court directed the appellant to deposit the entire compensation with interest. 12. Now, all the claimants are at liberty to withdraw their apportioned share amount, with interest thereon, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.119 of 2007, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District cum Sessions Court) Fast Track Court No.2, Ranipet, after filing a memo along with a copy of this order. 13. In the result, the above appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the award and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.119 of 2007, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District cum Sessions Court) Fast Track Court No.2) Ranipet, dated 13.08.2008, is confirmed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.