Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 3346 (MAD)

Sivan v. Vedhakkan

2018-09-27

V.M.VELUMANI

body2018
JUDGMENT V.M. VELUMANI, J. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed to fix the entire liability on the Insurance Company and allow the Appeal and consequently, enhance the award amount passed in MCOP.No.274 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thirunelveli, dated 15.07.2009. 2. The appellant, who is the claimant in MCOP.No.274 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thirunelveli, challenging the Award, exonerating the second respondent/Insurance Company from its liability and aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, filed the present appeal. 3. The Tribunal considering the pleadings oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the first respondent and hence, the first respondent is responsible for the accident and also held that the driver did not possess valid driving licence to drive the load Auto, exonerated the second respondent/Insurance Company from its liability. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the driver of the load Auto had valid driving licence to drive the Light Motor Vehicle and failure on the part of the driver to get an endorsement or badge, will not exonerate the Insurance Company from its liability to pay compensation. The Tribunal ought to have applied multiplier and granted more compensation. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/Insurance Company contended that the first respondent violated the policy condition by allowing a person to drive the load Auto without having valid driving licence at the time of accident. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not meagre and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the multiplier method need not be applied. 6. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the second respondent. 7. The Tribunal exonerated the second respondent from its liability to pay compensation on the ground that the driver of the vehicle did not possess valid driving licence and did not obtain the badge or endorsement to drive the load Auto. This finding is erroneous. The driver of the load Auto had valid driving licence to drive light motor vehicle. He did not obtain endorsement or badge to drive the commercial vehicle. This finding is erroneous. The driver of the load Auto had valid driving licence to drive light motor vehicle. He did not obtain endorsement or badge to drive the commercial vehicle. It is well settled that no separate endorsement is required to be obtained by holder of LMV licence to drive the transport vehicle, as per the Judgment (Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in, (2017) 2 TNMAC 145 (SC)). In view of the same, the finding of the Tribunal exonerating the second respondent/Insurance Company is set aside. 8. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the appellant has suffered 40% of disability. The appellant has not let in any evidence to show that he is totally immobilised and not in a position to do any work. In such circumstances, the appellant is not entitled to any compensation by adopting multiplier method. The Tribunal granted a sum of Rs. 1,000/- per percentage of disability. Since the accident took place in the year 2007, the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per percentage of disability and accordingly, the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 80,000/- (Rs. 2,000/- x 40) towards disability. Further, the appellant was in hospital as in-patient from 27.08.2007 to 06.09.2007, the tribunal has not granted any amount towards attendant charges and hence, the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 3,000/- towards attendant charges. The amount awarded by the Tribunal towards extra nourishment is very meagre and hence, the same is enhanced to Rs. 5,000/- from Rs. 1,500/-. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the appellant is a flower vendor and was earning a sum of Rs. 200/- per day and claiming a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month for loss of income, for six months. The Tribunal has granted only a sum of Rs. 3,500/- per month and awarded a sum of Rs. 10,500/- for loss of income for three months. The said amount is enhanced to Rs. 13,500/- (Rs.4,500/- x 3) by granting Rs. 4,500/- per month. In all other aspects, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is hereby confirmed. Therefore, the award of the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs. 1,12,494/- to Rs. 3,500/- per month and awarded a sum of Rs. 10,500/- for loss of income for three months. The said amount is enhanced to Rs. 13,500/- (Rs.4,500/- x 3) by granting Rs. 4,500/- per month. In all other aspects, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is hereby confirmed. Therefore, the award of the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs. 1,12,494/- to Rs. 1,62,000/- in the following manner:- S. No Description Amount awarded by Tribunal Amount awarded by this Court Award confirmed or enhanced or granted 1 Disability 40,000.00 80,000.00 Enhanced to Rs. 40,000/- 2 Loss of Income 10,500.00 13,500.00 Enhanced to Rs. 10,000/- 3 Attendant charges - 3,000.00 Granted Rs. 3,000/- 4 Extra nourishment 1,500.00 5,000.00 Enhanced to Rs. 3,500/- 5 Transportation 1,000.00 1,000.00 Confirmed 6 Medical expenses 34,494.00 34,494.00 confirmed 7 Pain and suffering 25,000.00 25,000.00 Confirmed Total 1,12,494.00 1,61,994.00 R/o. Rs. 1,62,000/- Enhanced by RS.49,500/- 10. The interest awarded by the Tribunal at the rate of 7.5% per annum remains un-altered. 11. The second respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the said sum of Rs. 1,62,000/- together with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit to the credit of MCOP.No.274 of 2007, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thirunelveli, after deducting the amount already deposited if any, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such deposit being made, the appellant/claimant is permitted to withdraw the said award amount along with accrued interest and costs on filing proper application before the Tribunal. 12. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No costs.