TC/224/1998 of COMMR OF I.T Vs M/S.CCC.HOLDINGS on 27 November 2002

:COMMON JUDGMENT

[Judgment of the Court was made by K.KALYANASUNDARAM,J.]

These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company challenging the award made by the Motor AccidentClaims Tribunal~cum~District Judge, Karur, in M.C.O.P.Nos.432 and 433 of2011, dated 29.10.2013.

2. The facts in brief:

On 1.5.2011,the first claimant in M.C.O.P.No.432 of 2011 namely S.Ganesan was driving his car bearing Registration No. K.A.03~MB~3632 atSalem~Namakkal N.H.7 Four Lanes Road. At that time, the bus belonging tothe first respondent bearing Registration No. TN~30~AE~0333 which was alsoproceeding on the same direction in a rash and negligent manner, withoutgiving proper signal, stopped and halted the bus all of a sudden. As aresult of which, the car dashed behind the bus. In that process, wife of thefirst claimant and the mother of the claimants 2 and 3 namely Senthil Kumarisustained multiple injuries and she was taken to Kurinji Hospital, Salem andafter treatment as inpatient, he lost her breath on 11.05.2011 in the saidhospital itself. Alleging that the driver of the bus was responsible for theaccident, the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.432 of 2011 was filed seekingcompensation of Rupees one crore and fifty laksh.

3. According to the claimants, the deceased was aged about 41 years ason the date of accident and was working as Assistant Executive Engineer inDEDC, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Dharmapuri and earning a sum ofRs.55,730/~ as monthly salary.

4. MC.O.P.No.433 of 2011 was filed by minor G.Manimuthu Kumaran,represented by his father S.Ganesan, claiming compensation of Rs.5 lakhs.Theclaimant travelled along with the deceased and sustained injuries.

5. A detailed counter was filed disputing the age,avocation, manner of accident and the liability. According to the appellant, the driver of theCar was responsible for the accident and the claim made was exorbitant andexcessive.

6. Before the Tribunal, in order to prove the respective cases, claimants examined three witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.3 and marked Ex.P1 toExP26 and on the side of the appellant, three witnesses were examined asR.W.1 to R.W.3 and two exhibits were marked as Ex.R1 and Ex.R2.

7. Ex.P1~certified copy of the First Information Report shows that acase was registered against the driver of the bus. Ex.P3 is the report of theMotor Vehicle Inspector, Ex.P5 is the rough sketch. Ex.P6 would reveal thata final report was filed against the driver of the bus under Section 304(A)and 338 of IPC. R.W.2~Nithiya, who was working as Motor Vehicle InspectorGrade~II at Namakkal, has deposed stating that normally 10 meters distancehas to be maintained between two vehicles. If the said distance is maintainedand if the vehicle proceeds ahead of the vehicle is suddenly stopped, thevehicle coming on the backside would avert any accident. R.W.1, who is thePublic Relation Officer in the National Highways Authority, Salem has deposedthat in both side of the road, petrol bunks are situated and one Arya BhavanHotel is also situated and there is a central median on the National Highwaysand 100 feet breadth is available on either side of the road and the heavymotor vehicles would ply on the left track of the road and light motorvehicles would ply on the right track of the road. The first claimantexamined himself as P.W.1 and he narrated the manner of accident, as set outin the claim petitions.

8. The Tribunal, after analyzing the entire evidence, came to theconclusion that the driver of the bus was responsible for the accident andawarded a compensation of Rs.1,11,53,210/~ in M.C.O.P.No.432 of 2011 andRs.87,650/~ in M.C.O.P.No.433 of 2011. Challenging the above said award madein the common judgment, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have beenfiled by the appellant/Insurance Company.

9. Mr.K.Bhaskaran, learned counsel for the appellant would vehementlycontended that the driver of the car has driven his vehicle in a high speedand dashed behind the bus, for which, the insurer of the bus cannot bemulcted with liability. The learned counsel placing reliance on the evidenceof R.W.2 would argue that the required distance of 10 metres was notmaintained and hence, some percentage of negligence has to be fixed on thedriver of the car.

10. Per contra, it is the submission of Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian,and Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan, learned counsel appearing for the respondentsthat the Tribunal, on proper appreciation of the evidence, has come to aright conclusion on the aspect of negligence, which does not warrant anyinterference by this Court. It is further submitted that the award of theTribunal is just and reasonable and hence the same has to be confirmed.

11. In the case on hand, it is not in dispute that on 1.5.2011, busbelonging to the first respondent namely, P.R.Rajendran and the car belongingto the first claimant were proceeding in the north~south direction at Salem~Namakkal N.H, Four Lane Road. Perusal of Ex.P5~Rough Sketch shows that theaccident had taken place on the right track of the road. Though R.W.3 hasstated that if the distance of 10 meters is maintained between the vehiclesproceeding on the same direction, the accident would have been averted. This

Court is not able to accept the said contention of R.W.3 for the reason thatmost of the vehicles plying on the National Highways go on high speed and itwould be impossible to stop the vehicle, if the vehicle proceeding on thesame direction stops the vehicle without proper signal by applying suddenbrake.

12. Further, it has been categorically deposed by R.W.1 that heavyMotor Vehicles have to ply on the left track of the road and light motorvehicles have to ply on the right track of the road. But in the case onhand, from the evidence of P.W.1 and Ex.P1, it is evident that the driverof the bus has driven his vehicle on the right track of the road and stoppedthe vehicle abruptly, without giving proper signal. Hence, in our consideredopinion, the Tribunal has rightly held that the driver of the bus has causedthe accident.

13. Next, with regard the quantum of compensation, it is an admittedfact that the deceased was working as Assistant Executive Engineer in TamilNadu Electricity Board and was drawing a salary of Rs.55,730/~p.m. Ex.P25 isthe Pay Certificate of the deceased Senthilkumari, Ex.P23 and Ex.P24 are theincome~tax returns submitted by the deceased Senthilkumari. Based on theabove evidence, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceasedat Rs.55,730/~p.m and added 50% towards future prospects. The Apex Court inthe case of National Insurance Company Limited .vs. Pranay Sethi and othersreported in (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases, 680 in Paragraph 59.3, has held asfollows:

--59.3 while determining the income, an addition of 50% of actualsalary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where thedeceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should bemade. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40to 50 years. In case, the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, theaddition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary lesstax.--

14. In the instance case, proper addition would be 30% towards futureprospects and by adding 30%, the income of the deceased the income isarrived at Rs.72,449/~p.m. After deducting 1/4th therefrom towards personalexpenses of the deceased, the contribution to the family comes to Rs.54,337/~p.m and by applying -14- multiplier as per decision in Sarla Verma-s case,the total loss of income is assessed at Rs.1,00,28,616/~ and afterdeducting 20% towards income~tax, the total loss of income would beRs.73,02,893/~.The claimants are also entitled for a sum of Rs.70,000/~towards conventional damages. Ex.P13~Medical Bills of the deceasedSenthilkumari, shows that Rs.2,10,450/~ was incurred towards medicalexpenses. By adding all these awards, the total compensation is arrived atRs.75,83,343/~. Hence the claimants in C.M.A.No.65 of 2014 is entitled to acompensation of Rs.75,83,343/~ with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a from thedate of claim petition till the date of realization.

15. Insofar as C.M.A(MD)No.66 of 2014 is concerned, the Tribunal afteranalyzing both oral and documentary evidence, awarded a sum of Rs.87,650/~ as total compensation to the injured claimant, which in our considered opinion,seems to be a just and reasonable and hence the same is confirmed.

C.M.A(MD)No.65 of 2014

Conclusion

In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed bymodifying the award amount from Rs.1,11,53,210/~ to Rs.75,83,343/~ withinterest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date ofrealization. It is represented by the learned counsel for the appellant that50% of the award amount has already been deposited. The appellant is directedto deposit the modified award amount, less the amount already deposited,with proportionate accrued interest and costs within a period of eight weeksfrom the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the firstclaimant is entitled to receive a sum of Rs.15 lakhs towards his share, thesecond and third claimants are awarded Rs.25 lakhs each and fourth claimantis entitled to receive a sum of Rs.10,83,343/~ towards her share. The majorclaimants are permitted to withdraw their share with their respectiveproportionate interest and costs, by filing necessary application before theTribunal. The entire share of the minor claimants shall be deposited in anationalized Bank till they attain majority.

C.M.A(MD)No.66 of 2014

In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed confirmingthe award of the Tribunal and the claimant is entitled to a sum ofRs.87,650/~ as total compensation with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date ofclaim petition till the date of realization. It is represented by the learnedcounsel for the appellant that 50% of the award amount has already beendeposited. The appellant is directed to deposit the award amount, less theamount already deposited, with proportionate accrued interest and costswithin a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of thisorder. On such deposit, the claimant, who was a minor, aged 15 years in theyear 2011, seems to have now attained majority, is permitted to receive theaward amount with interest and costs, by filing necessary application beforethe Tribunal. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition isdismissed.

To

1. The District Judge,(Motor Accident Claims Tribunal),Karur.

2. The Record Keeper,Vernacular Section,Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,Madurai.