Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 3829
High Court of Judicature at Madras
R. BANUMATHI & M.M. SUNDRESH
The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Chennai & Another
Versus
N. Lakshmi Priya & Others
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 143 to 146 of 2006 & C.M.A.No.2759 of 2005
Decided On :09-02-2010
For the Appellants:S. Manohar, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Nagasundaram, K.P.Santhosh, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the insurance company to pay compensation for injuries sustained in a motor accident, based on the nature of injuries and loss of dependency.
Headnote:
Compensation - Motor Accident - M.C.O.P.Nos.1393 to 1395 & 3333/1999 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a motor accident where the deceased and claimants sustained injuries. The claimants filed petitions seeking compensation for the injuries sustained in the accident.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle and held the insurance company liable to pay compensation to the claimants.
Issues: The issues included the quantum of compensation for the injuries sustained and the calculation of loss of dependency for the deceased.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the nature of injuries, medical expenses, and permanent disability to determine the quantum of compensation. It also assessed the loss of dependency for the deceased based on her income and personal expenses.
Final Decision: The court confirmed the compensation awarded to the claimants, with modifications to the amounts for permanent disability, pain and suffering, and loss of dependency. The interest rate was also reduced.
R. BANUMATHI, J.
Being aggrieved by the Award of compensation and also quantum of compensation to the injured Claimants, Appellant-Insurance Company has preferred C.M.A.Nos.143 to 146/2006. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation for the death of their mother Solai ammal, Claimants who are son and daughter have preferred C.M.A.No.2759/2005.
2. For convenient, parties are referred as per their array in C.M.A.Nos.143 to 146/2006. Deceased Solaiammal is the mother of Claimants in C.M.A.Nos.144 to 146/2006 who have also sustained injuries in the accident.
3. Brief facts which led to the filing of Claim Petitions are that on 07.03.1997 at about 19.30 hours, Solaiammal and Claimants -Lakshmi Priya, Lakshmi and Senthilkumar were travelling in Tata Sumo bearing registration No.TN-09 K 4477 owned by from Chennai to Villupuram. When the said Tata Sumo proceeding in G.S.T.Road at Bagalpuliyur Kottu Road, the driver of Tata Sumo drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the Road Roller bearing registration No.AP-34 1607 which was going in front of Tata Sumo. Due to the accident, Claimant Lakshmi Priya [1st Respondent in C.M.A.No.143/2006] sustained fracture in left leg, left jaw and crush injury over right hand and also multiple injuries all over the body. Claimant Lakshmi [1st Respondent in C.M.A.No.144/2006] sustained fracture over upper jaw and multiple injury all over the body. She had also lost 4 teeth in the accident. Claimant Senthilkumar [1st Respondent in C.M.A.No.145/2006] sustained fracture in left hand and abrasions all over the body and Solaiammal died on the spot. After the accident, all the injured were admitted in Government Hospital, Villupuram and thereafter in Apollo Hospital, Chennai. Regarding the accident, Criminal Case was registered in Crime No.174/1997 of Mayilam Police Station. Alleging that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of Tata Sumo driven by its driver, injured Claimants and dependents of Solaiammal have filed Claim Petitions [M.C.O.P.Nos.1393 to 1395 & 3333/1999] claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-; Rs.2,00,000/-; Rs.1,50,000/-and Rs.40,00,000/-respectively.
4. Denying the manner of accident, Appellant-Insurance Company has filed counter-affidavit stating that owner and insurer of Road Roller bearing registration No.AP-34 1607 are necessary parties to the proceedings and in the absence of them, Claim Petitions are liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is also alleged that injured and deceased are not under the coverage of Insurance Policy and the policy is only benefit of indemnity against third parties and not for the family members. Insurance Company inter alia objected to the quantum of compensation.
5. Before the Tribunal, Claimants themselves were examined as PWs.1 to 3. Dr.Kalkura who issued Dental disability certificate was examined as PW4 and Dr.J.R.R.Thiagarajan who issued disability certificate was examined as PW5 and one Gopalakrishnan was examined as PW6. Exs.P1 to P24 were marked on the side of Claimants. On the side of Appellant-Insurance Company one Murali, who was working as Senior Assistant in Appellant-Insurance Company was examined as RW1 and Ex.R1 was marked.
6. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has held that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Tata Sumo bearing registration No.TN-09 K 4477 and that the insured viz., 2nd Respondent [Krishnasami] and Appellant-Insurance Company are jointly and severally liable to pay the
7. C.M.A.No.143/2006 [M.C.O.P.No.1393/1999]:
In the accident the injured Claimant Lakshmi Priya sustained fracture left mandible at the condyle and multiple lacerations over right forearm, left leg and lower lip which caused disfigurement. After the accident, she has taken treatment in Villupuram Government Hospital and later admitted in Apollo Hospital, Chennai and taken treatment as inpatient from 08.03.1997 to 17.0
