Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 650 (MAD)

Tamilnadu State v. Saroja

2014-03-13

S.MANIKUMAR

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. In an accident, which occurred on 04.08.2004, one Mr.Raghu, died. Legal representatives, viz., wife, two major daughters, one major son and minor daughter of the deceased and parents aged about 60 and 58 respectively, filed MCOP No.728 of 2005 claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. The police jeep bearing Regn.No.TN04G0220, involved in the accident, is owned by the Government and stood in the name of the Superintendent of Police, Railways, Chennai. He is the 2nd respondent in the claim petition. A case in Cr.No.554/04 has been registered under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) IPC on the file of the Jolarpettai Police Station, against the driver of the police jeep. 2. Before the claims tribunal, in the counter affidavit, the appellants have submitted that the vehicle was driven in a cautious manner, following the rules and regulations, and it was the deceased, who invited the accident by his negligence. Hence, they denied negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep and their consequential liability, to pay compensation. Without prejudice to the above, they disputed the age, income and the quantum of compensation claimed under various heads. 3. Before the claims tribunal, wife of the deceased examined herself as PW1 and reiterated the manner of accident. She has not witnessed the accident. PW2, is stated to be the eye-witness. Ex.P1 dated 04.08.2004, FIR, Ex.P2 dated 04.08.2004, Postmortem Report, Ex.P3, dated 04.08.2000, copy of charge sheet in C.C.No.214 of 2004, Ex.P4, dated 06.08.2004, Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report, Ex.P5, Identity card of the claimant, Ex.P6, dated 07.09.2004, Death certificate of Raghu and Ex.P7, dated 10.09.2004, Legal heir certificate, have been marked on the side of the respondents/claimants. RW1, driver of the jeep, has adduced evidence disputing the manner of accident. No document has been filed on behalf of the appellants. 4. Upon evaluation of pleadings and evidence, the claims tribunal held that the driver of the jeep bearing Regn.No.TN04G0220, was negligent in causing the accident. The deceased was aged 48 years and as a Beedi Worker in Sun Beedi Factory, Jolarpet, Thirupathur Taluk, stated to have earned Rs.4,500/-per month. But in the absence of any proof of income, the claims tribunal fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month. Material on record discloses that during pendency of the claim petition, claimants 6 & 7, parents, died. 5. But in the absence of any proof of income, the claims tribunal fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month. Material on record discloses that during pendency of the claim petition, claimants 6 & 7, parents, died. 5. After the demise of the parents, the number of claimants has become to 5. Hence, having regard to the number of dependents and following the decision of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 , the claims tribunal deducted 1/4th from Rs.3,000/- towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased. Taking a meagre sum of Rs.2,250/-, as the monthly contribution to the family, comprising of wife and four children, the claims tribunal, by applying 13' multiplier, computed the loss of contribution to the family at Rs.3,51,000/-. In addition to the above, the claims tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/-for transportation, Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.25,000/-for loss of love and affection. Altogether the claims tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,86,000/- as compensation, with interest, at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of claim. 6. Assailing the correctness of the award, fixing negligence on the driver of the jeep bearing Regn.No.TN04G0220 and contending inter alia that the claims tribunal has erroneously fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.2,250/-, without any basis, the present appeal has been filed. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the State and perused the materials available on record. 8. No sooner the accident occurred, a case in Cr.No.554/04 has been registered under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) IPC on the file of the Jolarpettai Police Station, against the driver of the police jeep. The vehicle owned by the Government, and it stood in the name of the Superintendent of Police, Railways, Chennai. Admittedly, PW1, wife of the deceased had not witnessed the accident. However, PW2, eye witness, has clearly deposed that on 04.08.2004, about 8pm, when he was proceeding to Jolarpet in a bicycle, the deceased and another person, Somu were walking on the left extreme side of the road and at that time, a jeep bearing Regn.No.TN04G0220, driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the abovesaid persons. 9. As stated supra, FIR has been registered against the driver of the police jeep. 9. As stated supra, FIR has been registered against the driver of the police jeep. RW1, driver of the jeep though, disputed the manner of accident by adducing evidence to the effect that despite, the vehicle was driven cautiously by him and sounding horn, the deceased and one Mr.Somu, in an unstable manner, had invited the accident, the claims tribunal, by observing that had the jeep driver been cautious in driving the vehicle, he could have avoided the accident and so saying fixed negligence on the driver of the jeep. The oral testimony of RW1, is not corroborated by documentary evidence. At this juncture it should be noted that though the vehicle stood in the name of the Superintendent of Police, Railways, Chennai, the police on investigation charge sheeted the driver in C.C.No.214 of 2004. Even taking for granted that the accident occurred in the manner as deposed by RW1, driver of the jeep, the claims tribunal has recorded that there was no intimation to the police, by RW1, Driver. On the contra, a criminal case in Cr.No.554/04 has been registered under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) IPC on the file of the Jolarpettai Police Station, against the driver of the jeep and he has also been charge sheeted in C.C.No.214 of 2004. 10. Upon evaluation of the testimony of the witnesses, the claim tribunal has found that the oral testimony of the respondents/claimants, is duly corroborated by Ex.P1, FIR and Ex.P3, Charge sheet. It is well settled in motor accident claims cases that finding regarding negligence is arrived at by the Claims Tribunal, on the principles of preponderance of probabilities. Strict proof of evidence is not required like that of a criminal case. It is also well settled that the adjudication of claims before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is summary in nature. Testing the finding of negligence recorded by the Claims Tribunal, on the above said principles, and analysing the evidence on record, this Court is of the view that there is no perversity in the finding nor it is a case of no evidence. 11. At the time of accident, the deceased was stated to be aged 48 years. Initially, wife and four children, including a minor and parents were the claimants. During pendency of the claim petition, parents died. 11. At the time of accident, the deceased was stated to be aged 48 years. Initially, wife and four children, including a minor and parents were the claimants. During pendency of the claim petition, parents died. The deceased was stated to be a Beedi Worker, in Sun Beedi Factory, Jolarpet and earned Rs.4,500/-per month. But the respondents/claimants have not produced any proof of income. Though, a sum of Rs.4,500/-has been claimed, as the income of the deceased, the claims tribunal has fixed the monthly income only at Rs.3,000/-and taking note of the death of the parents / claimants 6 & 7, and the surviving legal heirs, viz., wife and four children including a minor, deducted 1/4th towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased and applying 13' multiplier, as per the judgment of the Sarla Verma, has computed the loss of contribution to the family at Rs.3,51,000/-. 12. The contention of the District Collector, Chennai and the Superintendent of Police, Railways, Chennai, that the claims tribunal, has erred in fixing the contribution to the family of the deceased, at Rs.2,250/-and accordingly, computed the loss of contribution to the family, is unconscionable. The accident occurred on 04.08.2004. Just, Rs.75/-per day, has been taken into account, for the purpose of computing the loss of contribution to the family. The District Collector, Chennai and Superintendent of Police, Railways, Chennai, have failed to consider that besides, providing food, shelter, education, health and other basic amenities, one may require a reasonable amount, to run a family. The deceased is survived by two daughters aged about 22 and 20 years, son aged about 19 years and a minor daughter aged about 17 years. Initially, parents were also the claimants. But they died during the pendency of the claim petition. 13. It is well known that based on the Consumer Price Index, wages are fixed for different categories of employment, depending upon the nature of work and hours of work, attended by the individuals. Orders are periodically issued by the respective District Collectors. Such rates of daily wages payable to the different categories are periodically revised, by the District Collectors, based on the Consumer Price Index. Orders are periodically issued by the respective District Collectors. Such rates of daily wages payable to the different categories are periodically revised, by the District Collectors, based on the Consumer Price Index. Having a clear knowledge of the daily wages fixed for different categories of employment, it is unfortunate that the District Collector, Chennai and the Superintendent of Police, Railways, Chennai, have chosen to assail the correctness of the award of claims tribunal, in adopting a meagre sum of Rs.2,250/- as the monthly contribution to the family, comprising of wife, and six other members, including three daughters, a son and parents. 14. As stated supra, apart from the loss of contribution to the family of Rs.3,51,000/- on account of the demise of the bread winner and head of the family, the claims tribunal has awarded a meager compensation of Rs.25,000/-alone, towards loss of love and affection i.e., Rs.5,000/-each to the dependents viz., wife, three daughters and a son. The District Collector, Chennai and the Superintendent of Police, Railways, Chennai, have failed to consider that the 1st respondent wife, aged about 40, at the time of accident is burdened with a great responsibility of bringing up her children, more particularly, three daughters, and a minor son, without her husband. Children have lost the love and affection and guidance of their father. Both the appellants have failed to consider that life without the guidance and love and affection of an elderly person in the family, more particularly, husband / father, would be extremely difficult. Without perceiving the hardships and agony, likely to be faced by a widow and the fatherless children, the appellants have chosen to challenge the determination of the contribution to the family, estimated at Rs.2,250/-per month, for the purpose of computing the loss of contribution to the family, as exorbitant. As stated supra, it is just about Rs.75/-per day, which is hardly insufficient to provide food, health, shelter, education and other basic amenities, to the children, more particularly daughters and a son 15. The accident has occurred on 04.08.2004. The award has been passed on 19.02.2010. Though, the appeal is stated to have been preferred on 10.10.2012, the condone delay petition has been numbered only in 2014. Considering the attitude of the appellants, this Court is inclined to award cost of Rs.5,000/-each to the District Collector, Chennai and Superintendent of Police, Railways, Chennai. The accident has occurred on 04.08.2004. The award has been passed on 19.02.2010. Though, the appeal is stated to have been preferred on 10.10.2012, the condone delay petition has been numbered only in 2014. Considering the attitude of the appellants, this Court is inclined to award cost of Rs.5,000/-each to the District Collector, Chennai and Superintendent of Police, Railways, Chennai. There is no merit in the appeal. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed with costs, without prejudice to the rights of the legal representatives to seek for enhancement. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 16. Consequent to the dismissal of the appeal, the appellants, are directed to deposit the award amount, with proportionate accrued interest and costs, less the statutory deposit, and the costs now imposed by this Court, forthwith, to the credit of MCOP No.728 of 2005 on the file of MACT (Sub Judge), Tirupattur, Vellore District. On such deposit, the respondents/claimants are permitted to withdraw the award amount as apportioned by the tribunal, by making necessary applications, in so far as the share apportioned to them.