Back
II (1991) ACC 163, 1991 ACJ 310
K Venkataswami, K Natarajan
Principal, Tamil Nadu Theological Seminary
Versus
A. Saraswathi And Ors.
Decided On : 29/6/1990
.
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - MACT - ACCIDENT - LIABILITY - CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE - INSURANCE - LIABILITY OF INSURANCE COMPANY - QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION - INTEREST.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased Anantharamakrishnan was proceeding on his scooter when the bus belonging to the first respondent suddenly stopped without giving any signal. The van belonging to the second respondent dashed against the scooter which dashed against the bus. The deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot.
Finding of the Court:
1. The driver of the first respondent's bus was negligent in not showing the signal and following the normal procedure in applying sudden brakes. 2. The driver of the second respondent's van was also negligent in driving the vehicle at a high speed and in not showing the signal while applying brakes. 3. Both respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to compensate the loss sustained by the claimants. 4. The liability of the insurance company is restricted to Rs. 50,000/- as the vehicle in question comes under Section 95(2)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act. 5. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and there is no need to enhance the same. 6. The claimants are entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of payment.
Issues: 1. Whether the learned Tribunal in fixing joint liability on respondent Nos. 1 and 2 at the ratio of 25 per cent and 75 per cent is correct? 2. Whether the Tribunal is justified in restricting the liability of the third respondent insurance company to Rs. 50,000/- by invoking Section 95(2)(b) and not Section 95(2)(c) ? 3. Whether the claimants are entitled to any compensation and what is the correct compensation amount payable to the claimants?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The driver of the first respondent's bus was negligent in not showing the signal and following the normal procedure in applying sudden brakes. 2. The driver of the second respondent's van was also negligent in driving the vehicle at a high speed and in not showing the signal while applying brakes. 3. Both respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to compensate the loss sustained by the claimants. 4. The liability of the insurance company is restricted to Rs. 50,000/- as the vehicle in question comes under Section 95(2)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act. 5. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and there is no need to enhance the same. 6. The claimants are entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of payment.
Final Decision: C.M.A. No. 69 of 1984 and C.M.A. No. 144 of 1984 are dismissed. C.M.A No. 128 of 1984 is allowed and the order of the Tribunal directing the respondents to pay interest at 6 per cent per annum on the compensation two months after the date of judgment if they failed to pay the amount is hereby set aside and instead, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are directed to pay interest from the date of the petition till the date of payment in respect of the amount payable by them at 12 per cent per annum and in other respects, the award passed by the Tribunal is confirmed. However, in the circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their respective costs in these appeals.
K.M. Jatarajan, J.
1. These three civil miscellaneous appeals arise out of the common order in M.C.O.P. No. 115 of 1982 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Subordinate Judge, Madurai. The second respondent before the Tribunal is the appellant in C.M.A. No. 69 of 1984. The claimants are the appellants in C.M.A. No. 128 of 1984 for enhancement of the compensation. The first respondent is the appellant in C.MA No. 144 of 1984.
2. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of these appeals can be stated as follows: The appellants in C.MA No. 128 of 1984 who are the claimants have filed M.C.O.P. No. 115 of 1982 claiming compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- on account of the death of the deceased Anantharamakrishnan who is the husband of the first claimant, father of the second claimant and son of the third claimant. The case of the claimants is that on 30.9.1981 the deceased Anantharamakrishnan left his house at about 8.30 a.m. and while he was proceeding to his office on his scooter bearing registration No. MDK 3331 on Madurai Vaigai Albert bridge, one P.R.C. bus bearing registration No. TMS 5965 belonging to the first respondent was proceeding in front of him. The driver of the vehicle TMS 5965 suddenly stopped the vehicle. Immediately the deceased also stopped his scooter. At that time the omnibus LMV bearing registration No. TNA 677 belonging to the second respondent was also proceeding in the same direction, namely, south to north. The driver of the omnibus drove the said vehicle in rash and negligent manner without adhering to the rules of the road and with rapid speed and dashed against the scooterist from behind and then dragged him to the right side. As a result of the same, the scooter and the deceased got jammed between the halted P.R.C. bus and the omnibus. The scooter was reduced into a tangled mass of twisted metal. The scooterist sustained multiple fatal injuries and his head was crushed side to side and it has lost his appearance. The skull had got fractured irregularly into several pieces. As a result of the injuries, the scooterist succumbed to the injuries on the spot. It is stated that but for the rash and negligent driving of the second respondent's driver and the indiscreet negligence on the part of the first respondent's driver, the accident would not have occurred. On enquiry, compensation for negligence has to be determined by the Tribunal. Criminal proceedings also have been instituted against the driver of the second respondent in Crime No. 57 of 1981 and it is pending enquiry before the Judicial First Class Magistrate No. 2, Madurai. Hence, they are liable to pay the compensation claimed. It is further stated that the deceased was a clerk in the Central Bank of India at the time of the accident. He is aged 31 years. He married the first petitioner on 5.5.1979 and out of the happy married life, the second petitioner who is aged 1 1/2 years was born. The mother of the deceased is aged. The separation of her son at such a young age is a tragedy befallen her and her mental anguish is enormous. The deceased was hale and healthy. But for this accident, he would have lived upto the maximum span of life. He has got 30 years of service to his credit till the retirement on 24.5.2011. As a clerk, he would have approximately drawn a salary of Rs. 8,15,000/-. The first petitioner who is young and aged about 29 years has to face various problems. The loss of consortium cannot be estimated by means of monetary measure. The future of her only son is a problem for her. Hence, she claimed a compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/-.
3. The said application is resisted by the respondents and in the statement of objections filed by the first respondent besides denying the allegations in the claim petition it is submitted that the bus of the first respondent was proceeding at a very moderate speed towards north in the down gradient portion of the road on the left with all care and caution. At that time, an old l
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
