Court clarified liability and compensation related to road accident caused by negligent placement of barricades, emphasizing proper signage as crucial under the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT :

K. KUMARESH BABU, J.

1. The appeal suit has been filed to set aside the judgment and decree dated 07.12.2016 made O.S.95 of 2011 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Cuddalore and the cross objection has been filed to set aside the findings and disallowed portion of the decree passed in O.S.No.95 of 2011 dated 7.12.2016 on the file of the Court of Principal District Judge, Cuddalore.

2. Heard Mr.M.Murali, learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellant and Mr.A.Muthukumar, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.T.Thiyagarajan, learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 4.

3. The instant appeal had been filed challenging the judgment and decree in which the trial Court had granted damages in favour of the plaintiffs and defendants 3 and 4 for the death of the plaintiffs’ father. The plaintiffs had sought damages of Rs.25,00,000/- for the loss to the estate of the deceased together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. It is the claim of the plaintiffs that their father, who had driven the two-wheeler, had met with an accident which arose due to the negligence of the Police Department in placing a barricade without any proper notice board. Apart from that, such barricades also did not bear any reflectors to warn riders. After contest, the trial Court had granted damages of a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- together with interest at 6% per annum and had apportioned the same between the plaintiffs and defendants 3 and 4. Challenging the award of compensation, defendants 1 and 2 had filed the appeal suit and, not having been satisfied with the award of compensation, the plaintiffs had filed the cross-objections. For better understanding, the parties are referred to as per their rank in the suit.

4. The trial Court had framed the following issues:

“1. Whether the plaintiffs and the defendants 3 and 4 are entitled to get decree for compensation from the defendants 1 and 2 as prayed for?

2. Is it true to say that the accident had happened due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased Ravichandran?

3. To what relief, the plaintiffs are entitled?”

5. The trial Court, on analysis of the evidence on either side, had come to the conclusion that the dependents of the deceased were entitled to be awarded a sum of Rs.14,95,665/- but had deducted 25% towards contributory negligence on the part of the deceased from the said compensation and had also held that 3rdrespondent/wife is entitled to a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of consortium and each respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs and 4threspondent/mother are entitled to a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of love and affection and further the respondents 1 to 4 are entitled to a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses. In total the respondents are entitled to get a sum of Rs.12,46,748/- rounded to Rs.12,50,000/- towards compensation.

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of defendants 1 and 2 would primarily assail the judgment and decree on the issue of liability. He would submit that the check post with the horizontal pole had reflective stickers and all preventive measures were followed in placing the said check post. He would submit that the said barricade pole was for controlling and regulating traffic and had been in position for a very long time. He would submit that the entire accident took place due to the negligence of the deceased, who drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.

7. That apart, he would submit that the deceased, being an employee of the Neyveli Lignite Corporation, had also been benefited with death-cum- gratuity benefits and therefore, the dependents of the deceased cannot be said to have suffered a financ