Back
2012 Supreme(Online)(KER) 7177
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K.HEMA, P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ
P.GOPALAN AND ANOTHER – Appellant
Versus
P.K.UMMER AND OTHERS – Respondent
MACA 1907 2006
SRI.C.K.SREEJITH, SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL
Establishing a causal link between driver negligence and the claimants' losses is crucial in motor accident compensation cases, alongside demonstrating credible income to substantiate claims.
Headnote:
Compensation - Motor Vehicle Accident - Motor Vehicles Act Section 163A - The Act provides for compensation claims due to road accidents, emphasizing the recklessness of drivers and acceptable proof of income to determine compensation amounts.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants' son died in a motorcycle accident allegedly caused by the negligent driving of a bus. They filed a claim for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, asserting the driver’s liability.
Finding of the Court:
The court determined the bus driver was negligent in driving, establishing liability for compensation. Although some evidence of the deceased's income was deemed inadmissible, subsequent evidence justified an increase in the income determination for compensation.
Issues: Whether the accident was due to the bus driver's negligence and the appropriate compensation amount for the appellants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the bus driver was negligent, thus holding the respondents liable for compensation, while adjusting the income estimate of the deceased for a more accurate compensation calculation.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, awarding additional compensation of Rs.1,63,200/- to the appellants.
JUDGMENT
Gopinathan, J.
The appellants are the petitioners in OP(MV)No.471/2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kasaragod. On 5.5.2003, the appellants' son, late Vinu, who was then aged 23 years, met with a road accident while riding a motor cycle and lost his life. It is alleged that a bus bearing Reg. No.KL.7/W/1836 driven, owned and insured by respondents 1 to 3 hit against the motor cycle and as a result, Vinu fell down and sustained grievous injuries to which he succumbed while undergoing treatment. It was further alleged that the accident occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the bus by the 1st respondent and hence, all the respondents are liable to compensate the appellants. The appellants claimed a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act .
2. Respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte. The 3rd : 2:
respondent in its written statement, while admitting the insurance liability, contended that the accident occurred not because of the negligent driving of the bus by the 1st respondent but because of the negligent riding of the motor cycle by the deceased and that the claim made in the petition is highly excessive and without any basis.
3. After raising the issues, an enquiry was conducted.
During the course of enquiry, Exts.A1 to A14 were marked. No oral evidence was adduced from either side.
4. Referring to Exts.A1 and A2, the Tribunal below arrived at a finding that the accident occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the bus by the 1st respondent and hence, the respondents as driver, owner and insurer are liable to compensate the appellants.
5. The appellants contended that the deceased was employed in Behrin and was drawing a monthly income of Rs.25,000/-. In support of that plea, Ext.A5 salary certificate : 3:
was relied upon. In Ext.A5, it is certified that the deceased was employed in Ajeeb stores, Behrin and was drawing a net monthly salary of BD 200 (Behrin Dirham). The Tribunal found that Ext.A5 was not properly proved and hence it is not admissible in evidence. Therefore, on a rule of thumb, the Tribunal determined the monthly income at Rs.1,800/-. From the above amount, one third was deducted towards personnel expenses. Thus the monthly loss of dependency was determined at Rs.1,200/-. It was capitalised for 17 years by adopting structured formula and compensation for loss of dependency was calculated at Rs.2,44,800/-. Compensation for loss of love and affection, medical expenses, funeral expenses were also granted as per the structured formula. In total a sum of Rs.2,64,300/- was awarded as compensation. Contending that compensation awarded by the Tribunal below is too inadequate, this appeal is preferred.
6. The appellants along with I.A.No.3014/2012 produced the original passport as well as the Bank passbook of the deceased. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent did not : 4:
file any counter affidavit or counter statement. The only objection raised is that even admitting those documents there is no proof to show that the deceased was employed abroad as stated by the appellants. We find no reason to reject the documents. Hence, the passport and the passbook are marked as Exts.15 and 16.
7. We have gone through Ext.A5 and the documents produced. Going by Ext.A5 and other evidence on record, we find that the Tribunal had rightly rejected Ext.A5 and we find no reason to arrive at a divergent conclusion. But, going through Exts.A15 and A16, we find that the deceased had acquired the passport as early as on 12.10.1998 and had been frequenting Behrin. However, there is nothing on record to find that, in fact, he was regularly employed. It appears that he had returned to the country on 15th January, 2003. The accident occurred on 5.5.2003. The bank passbook would show that he had deposited a sum of Rs.43,765/- through cheque on 17.1.2003. Then again on 5.2.2003 by clearance of a cheque a sum of Rs.14,912/- is deposited. These deposits indicate that : 5
