Back
2017 Supreme(Mad) 435
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Nooty Ramamohana Rao and S.M. Subramaniam, JJ.
M. Munuswamy and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
K. Srinivasan and Ors. - Respondents
C.M.A. Nos. 737 & 951 of 2014
Decided On : 23-03-2017
For the Appellants : Mrs. P.T. Salim Fathima
For the Respondents: Mr. R. Ravichandran, Mrs. R. Sree Vidhya
The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of compensation in motor accident cases, considering factors such as negligence, pecuniary loss, and future prospects of the deceased.
Headnote:
Motor Accident - Compensation - Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 - Rule 193 - Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Fact of the Case:
The case involved two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals against a common judgment by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The appeals sought compensation for the death of a woman and the injuries sustained by a minor in a motor accident. The accident occurred when a TATA ACE van rammed into the rear of a stationary truck, resulting in the death of the woman and injuries to the minor.
Finding of the Court:
The court found negligence on the part of both the truck driver and the TATA ACE van driver. It also considered the future prospects of the deceased in assessing compensation. The court upheld the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, considering the pecuniary loss, loss of consortium, funeral expenses, and other factors. It also confirmed the compensation awarded to the minor claimant for partial permanent disability and other related expenses.
Issues: The issues involved negligence of the drivers, assessment of compensation, and the future prospects of the deceased in determining the quantum of compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the drivers of both vehicles were negligent, and the assessment of compensation by the Tribunal was reasonable. It also emphasized that mere preparation for competitive examinations does not guarantee future employment prospects.
Final Decision: The court confirmed the common award of the Claims Tribunal in both cases and dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals.
Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J.
Both these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are directed against the common Judgment rendered on 31st October, 2013, by the II Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Court of Small Causes), Chennai, in MACTOP Nos.1677 & 1678 of 2011.
2. MACTOP No.1677 of 2011 has been preferred, claiming compensation in a sum of Rs.32 lakhs for the death of Mrs.M.Sudha Hari in a motor accident, which was caused on 22nd August, 2010, at about 22.45 hours and MACTOP No.1678 of 2011, has been preferred claiming a sum of Rs.36 lakhs for the injuries sustained by the minor claimant, in the very same accident referred to supra.
3(i) The case as set up by the claimants is that, on 22nd August, 2010, at about 22.45 hours, when the deceased as well as the claimants in O.P.No.1678 of 2011, along with 15 others were proceeding in a TATA ACE bearing Registration No.TN-02-AH-3907 on Tambaram-Maduravoyal bye pass road, the accident was caused by the TATA ACE ramming into the rear portion of a Truck bearing Registration No.TN-45-AM-2251, which was left stationary in the middle of the road on the Porur lake bridge, without flashing any signal or indication relating to its break down whatsoever.
(ii) The deceased succumbed to grievous injuries sustained by her, while receiving treatment in the Hospital. Therefore, the Claim Petition was filed, seeking a compensation of Rs.32 lakhs. The minor claimant in MACTOP No.1678 of 2011, has sustained multiple grievous injuries and hence compensation amount of Rs.36 lakhs was claimed.
(iii) Since both the Claim Petitions are arising out of one and the same accident and the respondents are also common, both the Claim Petitions were tried together and were decided by the common Judgment. Hence, it is only appropriate that both these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals were tried by us today.
4. On behalf of the claimants three witnesses were examined and the documents Exs.P1 to P14 were marked. Three witnesses were also examined, by the Insurance Company, which contested the case.
5. The first respondent in Claim Petition, is the owner of the Truck bearing Regn.No.TN-45-AM-2251, which was insured by the second respondent-Insurance Company. The third respondent is the owner of TATA ACE Van bearing Regn. No.TN-02-AH-3907 and that vehicle is insured by the fourth respondent. P.W.1-husband of the deceased though was not travelling in the TATA ACE Van, narrated of his knowledge about the accident and as to how the deceased succumbed to the injuries.
6. Since, P.W.1 was not present at the time when the accident took place, he may not be the best person to describe as to how the accident took place. P.W.2, is an independent witness, who, incidentally was riding a two wheeler ahead of the offending vehicle and as soon as the accident had occurred, he was found trying to help the injured. He is an un-interested independent witness. He deposed that around 10.45 p.m., on 22nd August, 2010, he was riding a motor cycle and another four wheeler was ahead of his motor cycle and they have noticed the stationary vehicle, a truck, stopped on the Porur Bridge and therefore after the four wheeler has just negotiated and passed the Truck and when P.W.2 was just trying to pass the stationary vehicle, the TATA ACE vehicle, which is following him, rammed into the stationary lorry from behind. He also deposed that several passersby have gathered there trying to organise help for the insured. In the meantime, two Policemen have also arrived and they have taken down his address and contacted him subsequently and recorded his statement. P.W.2, therefore, is not a chance witness or a witness who has been planted for the sake of making convenient statement to suit the interest of the claimants. He is a genuine eyewitness.
7. The evidence of P.W-2 inspires confidence in our mind. He clearly deposed that it was slightly drizzling at that hour and he could notice the stationary truck on one side of the road. Therefore, the four wheeler ahead of his
