Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 11899
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER – Appellant
Versus
RAJALAKSHMI – Respondent
The court established that contributory negligence can be equally attributed to involved parties, affirming the Tribunal's compensation assessment process based on established legal precedents.
Headnote:
Negligence - Road Accident - Motor Vehicles Act - Sections Not Specified - The court upheld the Tribunal's finding on contributory negligence by 50% for both drivers and confirmed the compensation awarded, interpreting legal standards for negligence and compensation under motor vehicle laws.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, an ambulance driver, died in a road accident involving a collision with a goods carriage. The legal heirs claimed compensation, asserting the other driver was negligent, while the insurance company contested this claim, alleging the deceased was at fault.
Issues: Whether the Tribunal correctly assessed the contributory negligence of both drivers and determined a proper compensation amount for the deceased's legal heirs.
Ratio Decidendi: The court maintained that the assessment of contributory negligence is supported by evidence and that the compensation calculation followed established legal principles, rendering no justification for interference.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, confirming the Tribunal's compensation award.
J U D G M E N T
The appellant/Insurance company has filed the present appeal challenging the award passed by the Tribunal dated 28.10.2020 made in MCOP No.3199 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (I Additional District & Sessions Judge), Cuddalore on the ground of negligence as well as quantum.
2. The respondents 1 to 4 are the legalheirs of the deceased Krishnan who died in the road accident on 08.08.2015. According to the respondents 1 to 4, on the date of accident, at about 17.30 hrs. while the deceased was driving the Ambulance bearing Regn.No.TN24 G 0102 on the Vaitheshvaran Koil to Mailaduthurai Main Raod, near Aathukkudi Vaitheshwara Maha Vitheyalaiya School opposite, the Eicher Goods Carriage Vehicle bearing Regn.No.TN37 AL 2615 which was driver in rash and negligent manner, hit against the ambulance and cause the accident. In the said accident, the deceased Krishnan sustained grievous injuries overhis head and all over the vital part of the body. Inspite of treatment, the deceased succumbed to injuries. Hence, the respondents 1 to 4 filed the claim petition claiming compensation.
3. The appellant/insurance company filed counter statement alleging that the deceased who was the ambulance driver was at fault and hence the offending vehicle driver is not at falt and contested the claim petition.
4. On behalf of the respondents 1 to 4 / claim petitioners, the 1sst respondent, wife of the deceased examined herself as PW1 and the occurrence witness was examined as PW2. Exhibits P1 to P7 were marked. On behalf of the appellant / insurance company, police constable was examined as RW1 and xerox copy of action report was marked as Ex.R1.
5. On consideration of both oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal appears to have come to the conclusion that the accident was a head on collusion of two vehicles and held that the driver of both the vehicles are responsible for the accident by fixing 50% contributory negligence on both the drivers of the vehicles and awarded a sum of Rs.9,05,500/- as compensation to the respondents 1 to 4.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/insurance company as well as respondents 1 to 4 and perused the materials available on record.
5. Though notice has been served on the fifth respondent and his name has been printed in the cause list, there is no representation for him either in person or through counsel.
6. From the evidene of RW1-police constable, it is seen that further action was dropped in the Ex.P1 – FIR. As per the investigation report, the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving by the deceased Krishnan, driver of the ambulance vehicle. In view of the said finding, the Tribunal has held that the accident had taken place due to the composite negeligence of driver of both the vehicles and accordingly fixed
50% contributory negeligence, each on the drivers of both the vehicles which does not warrant any intereference by this Court. Accordingly, the finding of the Tribunal with regard to negligence is hereby confirmed.
7. In so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, according to the respondents 1 to 4, the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month. However, they have not produced any document to prove the said contention. Taking note of the fact that the deceased was working as a driver in ambulance, the Tribunal fixed the notional monthly income of the deceased as Rs.9,000/-.
8. Following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2017 (2)
TN MAC 609 (SC) [National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and others], the Tribunal granted 40% enhancement towards future prospects. Since there are four dependants of the deceased, the Tribunal rightly deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased. By applying multiplier 15, the Tribunal has rightly awarded a sum of Rs.17,01,000/- as compensation towards loss of income. This Court is of the considered view that the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under other head
