Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1513 (MAD)

Unnamalai v. Ramakrishnan

2020-09-16

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

body2020
JUDGMENT : (Prayer: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated 13.08.2007 made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.694/06 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thiruvannamalai(District Court, Thiruvannamalai, Thiruvannamalai District).) 1. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal on hand is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 13.08.2007, made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.694 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thiruvannamalai District Court, Thiruvannamalai District. 2. The claimants are the appellants, filed the appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants mainly contended that the deceased, at the time of accident, was about 65 years and as per the Postmortem Report, he was aged about 68 years. However, the fact that he was employed as a Watchman in a Private company was not considered by the Tribunal and the Notional income of the deceased was fixed as Rs.2,000/- per month, which is erroneous. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants further reiterated that the Tribunal has not considered the fact that the wife is the dependent and the four daughters are the claimants. Thus, the compensation awarded is inadequate and the monthly income of Rs.2,000/- fixed by the Tribunal is improper and therefore, the compensation granted by the Tribunal is to be enhanced. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company disputed the contentions by stating that the Tribunal has granted a reasonable compensation with reference to the year, which the accident occurred as well as by considering various factors set out in the Claim Petition. All the daughters, who all are the claimants are married daughters and therefore, the Tribunal has quantified the compensation in a reasonable manner and therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 6. The accident occurred on 20.06.2006 at about 7.00 p.m at E.H.Road, M.R.Devadass Higher Secondary School. Kilpauk Traffic Investigation registered a case in Crime No.274/B1/06. The deceased Jayaraman died due to the accident. The Claim Petition was filed by his wife and four daughters. All the four daughters, even at the time of filing of the Claim Petition were married and the wife alone was the dependent during the relevant point of time, when the accident occurred and the deceased died. The Tribunal adjudicated the issues with reference to the documents as well as the evidences. All the four daughters, even at the time of filing of the Claim Petition were married and the wife alone was the dependent during the relevant point of time, when the accident occurred and the deceased died. The Tribunal adjudicated the issues with reference to the documents as well as the evidences. As far as the negligence is concerned, the Tribunal arrived a conclusion that the Auto Driver had driven the Vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased Mr.Jayaraman and therefore, the driver of the Auto is responsible for the accident. Regarding the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal fixed a sum of Rs.2,000/- as monthly income. As per the evidence, his age was 65 years. However, as per the Postmortem Report, the age of the deceased was 68 years at the time of accident. Considering the fact that he was aged about 65 years, the Tribunal fixed the notional income as Rs.2,000/- with reference to the year of accident. The contention of the appellants that the notional income of Rs.2,000/- is meagre and not in accordance with the facts furnished in the Claim Petition. Perusal of the Claim Petition reveals that the deceased was working as a Watchman and was earning a monthly income of Rs.4,000/-. It is pertinent to note that the claimants have not stated the details of the employer nor produced any evidence before the Tribunal that the deceased was working as a Watchman in a Private company and was receiving a salary of Rs.4,000/- per month. In the absence of any such basic details regarding the nature of the employer and the particulars, the Court cannot draw a factual inference that the deceased was working as a Watchman. Mere filing of the claim petition and stated that the deceased was working as Watchman is insufficient. Particulars of the employer is to be stated. A certificate from the employer regarding the salary is also required. At least an evidence, which is to be acceptable and must be produced before the Tribunal. In the absence of any such evidence, which is acceptable, the Court cannot interfere with the quantum of notional income fixed by the Tribunal on presumption or on the basis of imagination. Any such imaginary fixation is beyond the scope of the Courts. At least an evidence, which is to be acceptable and must be produced before the Tribunal. In the absence of any such evidence, which is acceptable, the Court cannot interfere with the quantum of notional income fixed by the Tribunal on presumption or on the basis of imagination. Any such imaginary fixation is beyond the scope of the Courts. While fixing the quantum of compensation, there must be evidence and the facts must be established in clear facts. In the absence of such proof to establish the employment as well as the income, Courts cannot presume the notional income of the deceased person and quantify the compensation. 7. In the present case, the deceased was aged about 65 years as per the witness. However, as per the Postmortem, he was aged about 68 years. If aged person, more specifically, aged about 65 years or 68 years is working as a Watchman in a Private company, then the Courts are bound to ascertain the fact and proof must be produced regarding the employment as well as the income. Courts can draw an inference in certain cases, taking note of the overall facts as well as the age of the persons. If the deceased person is of the year 40 or 50, then an inference may be possible, considering the other facts and circumstances. However, if the deceased is aged above 65 years, then such a presumption or inference is impermissible and the Courts cannot draw such factual inference in the absence of any acceptable evidence. 8. In the present appeal, the Claim Petition reveals that the deceased was working as Watchman. However, no details of employer has been produced. Even during the trial, Claimants have not produced any evidence to establish that the deceased was working as a Watchman and drawing the salary of Rs.4,000/- per month. This being the factum established and the accident occurred during the year 2006, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has rightly arrived a conclusion and the Notional income fixed by the Tribunal cannot be said to be unreasonable and under these circumstances, the judgment and decree dated 13.08.2007 passed in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.694/2006 stands confirmed and consequently, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in C.M.A.No.3451 of 2019 is dismissed. No costs.