Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 191
High Court of Judicature at Madras
R. BANUMATHI & S. VIMALA
United India Insurance Company Limited
Versus
K. Anysuya & Others
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.4002 OF 2005
Decided On :Decided on: 10-01-2012
For the Appellant:K.S. Narasimhan, Advocate.
For the Respondents - R1 & R3 - N.E.A. Dinesh, Advocate, R2 – died, R4 & R5 – exparte.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the calculation of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, considering factors such as the deceased's income, bonus, loss of dependency, and the appropriate multiplier to be used.
Headnote:
Motor Accident - Compensation - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166 - The judgment discusses the compensation awarded for the death of the deceased in a road traffic accident, considering factors such as the deceased's income, bonus, loss of dependency, and other related aspects.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was involved in a road traffic accident and subsequently succumbed to his injuries. The claimants filed a petition seeking compensation for the death of the deceased. The insurance company contested the petition, disputing the quantum of compensation and the evidence presented.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the van driver. It considered the deceased's income, bonus, loss of dependency, and other factors to calculate the compensation. The court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the award passed by the Tribunal.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the quantum of compensation, including the consideration of bonus in calculating loss of income, the multiplier used, and the rate of interest awarded.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the Tribunal's decision on the quantum of compensation, emphasizing the deceased's income, bonus, and loss of dependency. It also affirmed the use of a multiplier of 16 and the interest rate of 9% per annum.
Final Decision: The court confirmed the award passed by the Tribunal, dismissing the appeal and apportioning the compensation among the claimants as per the Tribunal's decision.
(S.VIMALA, J.)
1. The award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.V, Coimbatore in M.C.O.P.No.29 of 1996 dated 21.1.2003 awarding compensation of Rs.11,70,000/-for the death of deceased Krishnamoorthy in road traffic accident on 10.10.1995, is under challenge in this appeal.
2. Brief facts: On 10.10.1995 at 11.30 p.m., the deceased Krishnamoorthy was riding his TVS motor cycle bearing registration No.TN-39 A 1700 on Avanashi Road, Tiruppur. When he was nearing Gandhi Road bus stop, Canter van bearing registration No.TN-38 7612, belonging to the 2nd Respondent (in M.C.O.P.No.29 of 1996) driven by the 1st Respondent-driver, in a rash and negligent manner hit against the motorcyclist and the Canter van ran over the deceased. Due to the impact, Krishnamoorthy sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was taken to Tiruppur Government Hospital where he was given first aid and then referred to Coimbatore Government Hospital and on the way to Coimbatore Government Hospital, he succumbed to the injuries. Regarding the accident, a Criminal case was registered against the van driver [1st Respondent] in Crime No.949 of 1995 of Tiruppur North Police Station under Sections 279 and 304(A) IPC. At the time of accident, the deceased was working as Attender in Tiruppur Textile Limited and was getting salary of Rs.5,126/-per month. The deceased was also getting bonus of Rs.6,600/-per annum. Alleging that the owner and insurer are liable to compensate the claimants, wife and parents of deceased have filed the Claim Petition claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-.
3. Resisting the Claim Petition, Appellant-Insurance Company has filed the counter contending that (a)the accident was due to the composite negligence of the deceased and the driver of the van; (b)the owner and insurer of the motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-39 A 1700 are necessary parties to the Claim Petition and the Claim Petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and (c)the quantum of compensation claimed by the Claimants is excessive.
4. Before the Tribunal, 1st Claimant-Anusuya examined herself as PW1. Eye-witnesses-Ravichandran and Venkatachalam were examined as Pws.2 and 3 respectively. R.Velusamy, who was working as Time Keeper in Tiruppur Textiles Private Limited was examined as PW4. Exs.P1 to P9 were marked on the side of Claimants. No oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the Appellant-Insurance Company.
5. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident arose due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Canter van bearing registration No.TN-38 7612. Based upon Ex.P8-salary certificate and evidence of PW4, the Tribunal has held that at the time of accident deceased was earning Rs.5,680.48 as salary. Finding that if the deceased had been alive, he would get the monthly income of Rs.7,610.17, the Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.8000/-.
Deducting one-third for personal expenses and adopting multiplier "16", the Tribunal has calculated the loss of dependency at Rs.10,24,000/-. Tribunal has also held that during the year 1994-95, deceased was getting bonus of Rs.6,603.42. If the deceased alive, he would get the bonus of Rs.12,460.98, the Tribunal has taken Rs.8,000/-as yearly bonus. Adopting multiplier "16", Tribunal calculated the amount at Rs.1,28,000/-and adding the conventional damages, awarded total compensation of Rs.11,70,000/-, the details of which are as under:-
Loss of dependency : Rs.10,24,000.00
Loss of bonus : Rs. 1,28,000.00
Funeral expenses : Rs. 2,000.00
Loss of consortium : Rs. 10,000.00
Loss of love and affection : Rs. 6,000.00
Total : Rs.11,70,000.00
6. The Tribunal has apportioned 50% of the compensation amount to the first claimant/wife of the deceased and the remaining 50% was ordered to be apportioned amongst claimants 2 and 3. During the pendency of the claim petition, mother of the
