Back
2013 Supreme(Mad) 2149
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. BANUMATHI & T.S. SIVAGNANAM, JJ.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd, Cuddalore & Another
Versus
Gattawadi. Venugopal Kalpana & Others
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.819 of 2010 & 2043 of 2013
Decided On : 25-06-2013
For the Appearing Parties:S. Arun Kumar, Ms. Jayanthi Venkatesh, C. Prasanna Venkatesh, N. Vijaya Raghavanand, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of a reasonable and fair mesne in the calculation of compensation for loss of dependency and future prospects.
Headnote:
Compensation - Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Sections 279, 337, 338, 304(A) of Indian Penal Code - [279, 337, 338, 304(A)] - The court discussed the calculation of compensation for the deceased's loss of dependency, future prospects, love and affection, and consortium. It also considered the deduction for personal expenses and the application of the proper multiplier. The court referred to the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others v. Patricia Jean Mahajan and others to determine a reasonable and fair mesne in the calculation of compensation.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a road traffic accident resulting in the death of the deceased and injuries to the claimant and others. The appellant-insurance company challenged the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Tribunal's calculation of compensation was just and reasonable, and enhanced the total compensation awarded to the claimant.
Issues: The issues included the calculation of compensation, consideration of the deceased's income, and the determination of future prospects and conventional damages.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles from the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others v. Patricia Jean Mahajan and others to strike a reasonable and fair mesne in the calculation of compensation.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal by the appellant-insurance company and partly allowed the claimant's appeal, enhancing the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
Common Judgment
R. Banumathi, J.
1. Challenging the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.460 of 2004 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate Court), Cuddalore awarding compensation of Rs.62,99,800/- for the death of deceased Anis Gounalane in the road traffic accident on 21.6.2003, Appellant-Insurance Company has preferred C.M.A.No.891 of 2010. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, Claimant has preferred C.M.A.No.2043 of 2013 for enhancement. For convenient, the parties are referred as per their array in C.M.A.No.891 of 2010.
2. Brief facts are that on 21.6.2003 at about 3.30 A.M., deceased Anis Gounalane and his wife - Gattawadi. Venugopal Kalpana (Claimant), mother-in-law - Vimala and father-in-law - Venugopal were travelling in the car bearing registration No.PY-01 B 7887 owned by the 2nd Respondent (S.Ezhumalai) from Chennai to Pondicherry. When the car was nearing Kiliyanur, the Tipper lorry bearing registration No.TN-27 F 4799 owned by the 4th Respondent (Thiyagarajan) insured with the Appellant-Insurance Company proceeding in the opposite direction driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the car. Due to the impact, Anis Gounalane, Claimant-G.V.Kalpana and his father-in-law Venugopal and mother-in-law Vimala sustained grievous injurious and father-in-law Venugopal died on the spot. Immediately after the accident Anis Gounalane, Claimant and mother-in-law Vimala were admitted in Pondicherry JIPMER hospital. Anis Gounalane succumbed to injuries on the same day at 6.30 A.M. Regarding the accident, a criminal case was registered against the Tipper lorry driver in Crime No.415 of 2003 under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) I.P.C. of Kiliyanur Police Station. At the time of accident, deceased Anis Gounalane was aged 50 years and he was employed in Law University at Paris (France) and was earning 1500 Euro, equivalent to Indian Rs.85,000/- per month. Alleging that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of Tipper lorry driver and that Claimant has lost the support of her husband, Claimant has filed Claim Petition (M.C.O.P.No.460 of 2004) claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000/-.
3. Resisting the Claim Petition, Appellant-Insurance Company filed counter stating that when the driver of the Tipper lorry drove the vehicle in a moderate speed by observing traffic rules, the car driver drove the car in a rash and negligent manner without observing traffic rules and hit against the lorry and caused the accident and that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car and therefore, the Appellant-Insurance Company is not liable to any compensation. It was averred that at the time of accident, the driver of the car was not having a valid driving licence. Appellant-Insurance Company also raised objection regarding the quantum of compensation that it is highly excessive.
4. In the accident, Claimant-G.V.Kalpana also sustained injuries and she had filed Claim Petition in M.C.O.P.No.459 of 2004 claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. Before the Tribunal, both the Claim Petitions (M.C.O.P.Nos.459 and 460 of 2004) were taken up together and common evidence was adduced. In the Tribunal, Claimant-G.V.Kalpana examined herself as P.W.1. Dr.M.Vijay Anand Thambiah, who issued Ex.P13-disability certificate to P.W.1 was examined as P.W.2. Exs.P1 to P13 were marked. No oral and documentary evidence was adduced on the side of Appellant-Insurance Company.
5. Upon consideration of oral evidence of P.W.1 and Ex.P1-FIR, Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Tipper lorry driver and that Appellant-Insurance Company, insurer of the the Tipper lorry is liable to pay the compensation. Based on Ex.P6-certificate, Tribunal had taken the monthly income of the deceased at 950 Euro, equivalent to Indian Rs.64,600/-per month and the annual income at Rs.7,75,200/-. Adding Rs.2,00,000/-towards future prospe
