Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 4090 (MAD)

S. A. K. P. Ravinthran v. Palaniammal

2017-12-04

V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/first respondent against the Judgment and Decree, dated 03.04.2007 made in M.C.O.P.No.171 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Aruppukottai. 2. It is a case of fatal accident, which took place on 07.02.2000 at about 07.30 p.m. When the deceased-Karuppasamy was walking on the left side of the road, a Bajaj M-80 bearing Registration No.TAT-1461, driven by the driver of the appellant/first respondent in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased-Karuppasamy. Due to which, he sustained injuries and was admitted in the nearby hospital and thereafter, he was referred to the Government Hospital, Aruppukottai, where he succumbed to the injuries. At the time of accident, the deceased-Karuppasamy was aged 46 years and was doing weaving business and earned a sum of Rs.2,400/- per month. The wife and children of the deceased filed a claim petition claiming a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- as they lost their bread winner of the family. 3. The appellant/first respondent filed a counter-affidavit and denied the nature of claim petition, age and occupation of the deceased-Karuppasamy. It is further stated that he sold the Bajaj M-80 bearing Registration No. TAT- 4161 to the second respondent's father and he bought another Bajaj M-80 bearing Registration No.TN-67-3235 and at the time of accident, he was not the owner of the alleged vehicle and claimed for dismissal of the claim petition. 4. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants, one witness viz., P.W.1 was examined and seven documents viz., Exs.P.1 to P.7 were marked and on the side of the respondents, two witnesses viz., R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and one document viz., Ex.R.1 was marked. 5. The Tribunal, after considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence and arguments of the learned counsel appearing on either side and also appreciating the evidence on record totally awarded a sum of Rs.1,77,000/- as compensation to the respondents 1 to 4/claimants and directed the appellant/first respondent to pay the amount. 6. Against the Judgment and Decree, the appellant/first respondent has filed the present appeal. 7. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 8. 6. Against the Judgment and Decree, the appellant/first respondent has filed the present appeal. 7. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/first respondent submitted that the Tribunal failed to see that even though the appellant had categorically stated that he sold the vehicle to the father of the fifth respondent/Ramasamy in the year 1992 itself and handed over the necessary forms signed by him to the said Ramasamy, the claimants had failed to implead the said Ramasamy as party to the proceedings. The appellant herein is not the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident and he is not liable to pay the compensation, but it was not contended by him that the said vehicle involved in the accident was driven by one Selva Ganesh, son of Ramasamy and therefore, the said Ramasamy and Selva Ganesh are liable to pay the compensation. 9. From the perusal of the records, it is seen that on 07.02.2000 when the deceased-Karuppasamy was walking on the left side of the road, at that time, Bajaj M-80 bearing Registration No.TAT-1461, driven by the driver of the appellant/first respondent in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased-Karuppasamy. Due to which, he succumbed to injuries. P.W.1 is not an eye-witness to the occurrence. P.W.2 in his evidence has stated that due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Bajaj M 80, the accident had occurred and he gave a complaint before the police and the same has been marked as Ex.P.1, charge-sheet filed against the second respondent has been marked as Ex.P.2, rough sketch has been marked as Ex.P.3, observation mahazar has been marked as Ex.P.4, Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report has been marked as Ex.P.5 and post-mortem certificate has been marked as Ex.P.6. 10. P.W.1 in his cross-examination has deposed that the accident had occurred due to the negligent act of the driver of vehicle owned by the appellant/first respondent. The vehicle was insured from 07.03.2000 to 06.03.2001, but the accident occurred on 07.02.2000 one month prior to the coverage of policy. There was no evidence to show that the appellant/first respondent had sold the vehicle to the second respondent's father and no document was filed on his behalf. The vehicle was insured from 07.03.2000 to 06.03.2001, but the accident occurred on 07.02.2000 one month prior to the coverage of policy. There was no evidence to show that the appellant/first respondent had sold the vehicle to the second respondent's father and no document was filed on his behalf. As per Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the appellant/first respondent has not intimated the said sale to the RTO concerned. Since there was also no policy in existence, the appellant/first respondent has to pay the compensation. The appellant/first respondent has failed to examine the said Ramasamy and Selva Ganesh to prove the sale of his vehicle. Hence, the finding of the Tribunal that at the time of accident, the appellant/first respondent name found as the owner of the vehicle and he is liable to pay the money and the second respondent is not responsible for the accident, which in the considered opinion of this Court, is correct and the same does not require any interference. 11. P.W.1 in his evidence has stated that the deceased-Karuppasamy was earning a sum of Rs.2,400/- per month and at the at the time of accident, the deceased-Karuppasamy was aged about 45 years and no document has been produced to prove the income of the deceased-Karuppasamy and the Tribunal has fixed the annual income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- and deducted one-third amount and the same arrived at Rs.10,000/- and applied 13' multiplier and the same arrived at Rs.1,30,000/-, a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of consortium to the first respondent/first claimant, a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of love and affection to the claimants 2 to 4 and a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and totally awarded a sum of Rs.1,77,000/- as compensation to the claimants and directed the appellant/first respondent to pay the compensation amount, which in the considered opinion of this Court is reasonable and the same are confirmed. 12. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no error in the finding of the Tribunal and the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation. Hence, there is no infirmity or irregularity in the award passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal deserves to be dismissed. 13. 12. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no error in the finding of the Tribunal and the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation. Hence, there is no infirmity or irregularity in the award passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal deserves to be dismissed. 13. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the Judgment and Decree, dated 03.04.2007 made in M.C.O.P.No.171 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Aruppukottai, is hereby confirmed. The appellant/first respondent is directed to deposit the entire award amount, with accrued interests and costs, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not already deposited and on such deposit being made, the claimants are directed to withdraw their respective shares as apportioned by the Tribunal, along with accrued interest and costs, by filing necessary petition before the Tribunal. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.