Back
2006 Supreme(AP) 766
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : V.DHANAPALAN
K.JEYAGOPAL - Appellant
Versus
NACHIAMMAI - Respondent
Decided On : 07/12/2006
C. M. A. (NPD-S) 303 Of 1998
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 163-A – Accident – Death – Compensation Awarded – Challenged – Liability of insurance company – When liable – Accident occurred when their son along with three others, traveled in an Ambassador car on that fateful day when the car was Dindigul Madurai road, its driver, with view to make way for the vehicle coming in opposite direction, drove car in a rash and negligent manner, lost control of the car and collided against a bridge and in that accident, their son sustained serious injuries and died in hospital – In said petition, they contended that deceased was aged 28 years and was running agency business Agency and derived an income and since he had died, they have suffered loss of income and agony and therefore, they are entitled to get a compensation of Rs. 12 lakhs – Held, An award in the sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- has been passed taking the multiplier of 16. Our attention has been drawn to the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in which we find that for age group between 30 to 35 years, multiplier of 17 has been indicated – Counsel for claimants made submissions seeking enhancement of compensation on ground that income of deceased has not been properly estimated – We are not going into any other aspect except question of proper multiplier for computation of compensation. In our opinion, by taking multiplier of 17, amount of compensation deserves to be increased – Compensation amount may be suitably recomputed by Tribunal by applying the multiplier of 17 and interest at rate of 12% per annum on increased amount be also granted – Deceased was aged 28 years and as per Schedule II to Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, proper multiplier to be applied for age group of 25-30 years is 18. Thus, application of multiplier of 18 by Tribunal has much relevance to above proposition of law laid down by Supreme Court – Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with multiplier adopted by Tribunal and as such, quantum of compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- arrived at by Tribunal by applying multiplier of 18 is justifiable – Confirm award fixed by Tribunal and accordingly, quantum of compensation also is confirmed – Appeal dismissed.
( 1 ) CHALLENGING the award dated 23. 09. 1997 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III Additional District Judge, Salem) ("the Tribunal") in M. A. C. T. O. P. No. 1635 of 1995, the owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company, have preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
( 2 ) FOR the death of the deceased Kannappan, the respondents herein who were the petitioners before the Tribunal filed M. A. C. T. O. P. No. 1635 of 1995 seeking a compensation of Rs. 12,00,000/ -. It is their case that on 12. 12. 1994, when their son Kannappan, along with three others, traveled in an Ambassador car bearing Registration No. TN-27-5274 from Athur to Sabarimala. On that fateful day, at 3. 05 a. m. , when the car was nearing Ammaiyanaickanoor in the Dindigul Madurai road, its driver, with a view to make way for the vehicle coming in the opposite direction, drove the car in a rash and negligent manner, lost control of the car and collided against a bridge and in that accident, their son Kannappan sustained serious injuries and died in the hospital.
( 3 ) IN the said petition, they contended that the deceased Kannappan was aged 28 years and was running agency business by name Vairam Agency and derived an income of Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- per month and since he had died, they have suffered loss of income and agony and therefore, they are entitled to get a compensation of Rs. 12 lakhs.
( 4 ) THE second appellant Insurance Company filed a counter before the Tribunal and contended that the accident was not caused due to the carelessness and negligence of the car driver and further, the driving licence was not produced and hence, it is not liable to pay the compensation. The Insurance Company has also questioned the age, income and occupation of the deceased.
( 5 ) BEFORE the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimants, the father of the deceased was examined as P. W. 3 and Baranidharan and Rajavel who were the co-passengers in the car were examined as P. Ws. 1 and 2 respectively and as many as 22 documents were marked. On the side of the respondents, neither oral nor documentary evidence was let in.
( 6 ) THE Tribunal, after considering both the forms of evidence and holding that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the car driver and the first respondent being the owner of the car and the second respondent with whom the car has been insured, are variously and statutorily liable to pay the compensation, passed an award for Rs. 3,00,000/- and apportioned the amount between the parents of the deceased.
( 7 ) BEFORE this Court, the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company has put forward two-fold submission namely, (1) that the accident was not solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the car in question since the accident occurred only when the car driver tried to avoid an oncoming motor cycle in high speed on the opposite side and (2) that the Tribunal has erred in fixing the compensation at Rs. 3,00,000/- by applying the multiplier of 18 when the age of the deceased was 32 years and the parents were aged 49 and 52 years respectively.
( 8 ) ADMITTEDLY, it is not in dispute that the accident took place in the manner as explained above. No witness was examined on the side of the respondents in respect of negligence. Furthermore, the car driver himself has admitted that when he had driven the car rashly, the car dashed against the bridge on the left side of the road. Taking into consideration the exhibits filed in support of the claimants, especially the First Information Report, the sketch showing the manner of accident, the report of the Motor Vehicles Inspector, Accident Register, charge sheet and post-mortem certificate, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rashness and negligence of the car driver and accordingly, fixed the negligence on the part of the car driver.
( 9 ) THE above aspects would reveal, rather persuade this
