Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 2895
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.P.S. JANARTHANA RAJA
Thirisangu @ Sankar & Others
Versus
Velliangiri & Others
C.M.A. Nos.2895 & 2896 of 2004
Decided On : 20-07-2010
For the Petitioners:Mrs. R. Meenal, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 & R2 - No Appearance, R3 - J. Rangarajan, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principles of assessment to determine just and fair compensation for motor accident claims.
Headnote:
Motor Accident - Compensation - 168 of the Act - SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER (2009) 4 MLJ 997, SYED BASHEER AHAMED AND OTHERS VS. MOHAMMED JAMEEL AND ANOTHER (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225 - 168
Fact of the Case:
On 08.10.1999, a motor vehicle accident resulted in the death of Manikandaprabhu and grievous injuries to Anbukarasi. The claimants sought compensation for the accident. The Tribunal found the accident to be due to the rash and negligent driving of the van driver and awarded a consolidated sum of Rs.50,000 to each claimant. The claimants appealed, contesting the quantum of compensation awarded.
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 principles of assessment and awarded enhanced compensation to the claimants based on the age and circumstances of the deceased and injured claimant.
Issues: The issues involved the quantum of compensation to be awarded to the claimants and whether the principles of assessment were followed by the Tribunal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles of assessment as outlined in SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER and SYED BASHEER AHAMED AND OTHERS VS. MOHAMMED JAMEEL AND ANOTHER to determine the enhanced compensation for the claimants.
Final Decision: The court awarded enhanced compensation of Rs.1,50,000 to the claimants in CMA. No.2895 of 2004 and Rs.27,500 to the claimant in CMA. No.2896 of 2004, with interest at 7.5% from the date of the petition. The third respondent/Insurance Company was directed to deposit the enhanced compensation within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
1. The appeals are preferred by the claimants against the judgment and decree of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Tiruppur in M.C.O.P. Nos.393 of 2000 and 23 of 2000 dated 30.10.2003.
2. The brief facts arose in both CMA Nos.2895 and 2896 of 2004 in the same accident are as follows:
On 08.10.1999 at about 09.30 p.m. the deceased Manikandaprabhu (CMA. No.2895 of 2004) and injured-claimant Anbukarasi (CMA. No.2896 of 2004) met with motor vehicle accident. The deceased as well as injured-claimant were in front of the Balamurugan Company, Thattan Thottam, Tiruppur. At that time, a van bearing Registration No.TN-41-C-0477 came towards west driven by the first respondent-driver in a rash and negligent manner and hit against them. Due to the same, the deceased-Manikandaprabhu died on the spot and the injured-Anbukarasi sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident, the injured admitted in Tiruppur Government Hospital. The claimants are the mother and father in CMA. No.2895 of 2004 and claimed a sum of Rs.8,0,000/-. In CMA. No.2896 of 2004 the injured is the claimant claimed a sum of Rs.3,50,000/-. The third respondent-Insurance Company resisted the claim. On pleadings the Tribunal framed the following issues:-
"1. Whether the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the van driver or not?
2. What is the compensation the claimants are entitled to? If so, what is the amount and from whom?"
After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the van driver and awarded a consolidated sum of Rs.50,000/-with interest at 9% per annum in CMA. No.2895 of 2004 and awarded a compensation of Rs.50,000/-with interest at 9% per annum in CMA. No.2896 of 2004 and the details of the same are as under:-
In CMA. No.2896 of 2004
Loss of permanent disability Rs.40,000/-
Pain and suffering Rs. 5,000/-
Los of income Rs. 5,000/-
Total Rs.50,000/-
Aggrieved by that award, the claimants have filed the present appeal.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants-appellants questioned only quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and submitted that the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation as claimed by the claimant and the amount awarded under various heads is very low and the Tribunal has not followed the principles of assessment before passing the award. He further submitted that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is very low and meagre and seeks to enhance the compensation.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the third respondent-Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal had considered all the relevant materials and evidence on record and came to the right conclusion and awarded a just, fair and reasonable compensation. Hence the order of the Tribunal is in accordance with law and the same has to be confirmed.
5. Heard the counsel. On the side of the claimant, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P10 were marked. On the side of the respondents, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked. PW1 is the mother of the deceased. PW2 is the father of the deceased. PW3 is the doctor Mohammed Subbain. Ex.P1 is the xerox copy of the First Information Report. Ex.P2 is the xerox copy of the medical report of Anbukarasi. Ex.P3 is the wound certificate of Anbukarasi. Ex.P4 is the medical chits. Ex.P5 is the xerox copy of Post Mortem report. Ex.P6 is the death certificate of Manikanda Prabhu. Ex.P7 is the legal heir certificate. Ex.P8 is the transfer certificate. Ex.P9 is the X-ray. Ex.P10 is the disability certificate of Anbukarasi. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal had given a categorical finding that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the van and the finding is based on valid materials and evidence and the same is hereby confirmed.
6. In the case of SARLA VERMA AND OTHER
