BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 01/03/2010
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.MURGESEN
C.M.A.(MD)No.465 of 2008
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
Pillars Gate,
Opp. to Anna Stadium,
Balamore road,
Nagercoil. ... Appellant/4th
Respondent
Vs
1.Shahila
2.Sheik Afila
3.Sheik Fareeth
4.Fathima Beevi ... Respondents 1 to 4
/Petitioners
5.John Christopher
6.The Correspondent,
Christian College of Nursing Neyyoor,
Kanyakumari District.
7.The Bishop,
C.S.I. Kanyakumari Diocese,
Kanyakumari District. ... Respondents 5 to 7
/Respondents 1 to 3
Prayer
Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, against
the judgment and decree dated 03.11.2007, passed in M.C.O.P.No.192 of 2005 by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Nagercoil.
!For Appellant ... Mr.A.K.Baskarapandiyan
^For Respondents 1 to 4 ... Mr.K.N.Thambi
For 5th Respondent ... Mr.M.R.Sreenivasan
For Respondents 6 & 7 ... Mr.K.Sreekumaran Nair
* * * * *
:JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the judgment and
decree dated 03.11.2007, passed in M.C.O.P.No.192 of 2005 by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Nagercoil.
2. Before the tribunal, the appellant is the 4th respondent, respondents 1
to 4 are the petitioners and respondents 5 to 7 are the respondents 1 to 3.
3. The case of the petitioners briefly is as follows:
The petitioners are the wife, daughter and parents of the deceased S.Peer
Mohammed Rafi. On the fateful day, i.e. on 03.01.2005 at 1.40 P.M., when the
deceased was travelling in his two wheeler T.N. 74 F 7302 with a pillion driver
on his back side seat at a distance of 150 feet East of Kumaracoil Junction on
the Nagercoil to Trivandrum National Highway, the Ambassador Car bearing
registration No.TN-74-D-7574 was driven by the first respondent in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed against the deceased Peer Mohammed Rafi. Due to the
accident Peer Mohammed Rafi sustained grievous injuries and he succumbed to the
same. A criminal case was registered against the driver of the Car in Crime No.5
of 2005 under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) I.P.C. on the file of the Thuckalay
Police Station. The deceased Peer Mohammed Rafi was running New India
Electronics at Metukadai, Thuckalai and was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per
month. Due to his sudden demise the petitioners have lost his income. So, the
petitioners, who are the wife, daughter and parents of the deceased have filed
this petition claiming a compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- before the Tribunal.
4. The 1st respondent filed counter, wherein it was contended that the 1st
respondent has a valid driving licence; he is not at all liable for the
accident; the 2nd and 3rd respondent insured the vehicle with the 4th respondent
insurance company; he cannot compensate any claim as averred by the petitioners;
the compensation claimed is exorbitant and excessive and hence, the petition is
liable to be dismissed.
5. The 2nd respondent filed counter, wherein it was contended that the
monthly income of Rs.15,000/- stated in the petition is excessive, imaginary and
not correct; the petitioners’ claim is imaginary and exorbitant; there is no
negligence or carelessness or rashness on the part of the 1st respondent; the
vehicle owned by the 2nd respondent is insured with 4th respondent and hence,
the petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. The 4th respondent filed counter, wherein it was contended that the
accident occurred only due to the negligence of the deceased; the deceased was
unemployed; the petition is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary
parties; the compensation claimed is excessive, imaginary and fabulous; the
petitioners can claim interest only at the rate of 6% per annum and hence, the
petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants, P.W.1 to P.W.3 were
examined and Exs.P.1 to P.15 were marked. The respondents have not chosen to
adduce any oral or documentary evidence.
8. On consideration of the evidence on both sides, the Tribunal fixed the
compensation at Rs.8,92,864/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs and Ninety Two Thousand Eight
Hundred and Sixty Four only) with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition
till the date of deposit.
9. Challenging the said award passed by the Tribunal, this appeal has been
filed. At the outset the learned counsel for the appellant fairly admitted that
he is disputing only the quantum and he is not disputing the liability of the
appellant, as the rash and negligence of the car was proved. Hence, the finding
of the Tribunal regarding the rash and negligence of the driver of the tempo is
confirmed. Now we have consider only about the compensation awarded by the
learned Tribunal.
10. The point for determination in this appeal is:
(i) What is the just compensation?
11. Point : On 03.01.2005 at 1.40 P.M., the Ambassador Car bearing
registration No.TN-74-D-7574 met with an accident. In the accident, Peer
Mohammed Rafi, the husband of the first petitioner, father of the 2nd respondent
and son of respondents 3 and 4 was killed. Admittedly the victim was a 28 year
old young man and he was a diploma holder in Electrical and Electronics
Engineering. Exs.P.13 and P.14 would show that he is a qualified man in
electrical and electronics engineering. Exs.P.8 and 9 would show that he was
working abroad. After returning from abroad he settled in Thuckalay and he was
running New India Electronics Shop, which is evident from Ex.P.15, Tenancy
Certificate.
12. In the claim petition it is stated that the deceased was earning
Rs.15,000/- per month. This was spoken by P.W.1, wife of the victim and P.W.3.
The Tribunal has fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/-. Admittedly, no
sales tax particulars were produced. Normally, a diploma holder, who is doing
business will get Rs.6,000/- per month. So, a reasonable monthly income was
fixed by the Tribunal. The victim’s wife is 22 years old young girl. So, the
multiplier is fixed at 18. After deducting 1/3rd income towards the deceased’s
expenditure, his monthly contribution to the family is fixed at Rs.4,000/-. If
accordingly worked out the loss of income comes to Rs.4,000/- x 12 x 18 =
Rs.8,64,000/-. Hence, I find no reason to differ with the finding of the
Tribunal in fixing the monthly income.
13. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,000/- to take the body of the
deceased to the hospital, which is reasonable. Awarding a sum of Rs.1,000/-
towards the damage to cloth and other articles to an young man is correct. The
tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and
Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate, which are reasonable. Further, a reasonable
amount of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium was awarded. The medical
expenses of Rs.7,364/- awarded by the tribunal is supported by Ex.P.10, medical
bill. Rs.10,000/- awarded by the tribunal towards loss of love and affection
cannot be held as excessive. So, the tribunal has analysed the evidence
carefully and meticulously and arrived at the just compensation. income arrived
at by the Tribunal is confirmed. However, considering the rate of interest
prevailed at the time of awarding compensation, the rate of interest awarded by
the Tribunal is reduced from 9% p.a. To 7.5% p.a. Accordingly, the point is
decided.
14. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed by
reducing the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal from 9% p.a. To 7.5% p.a.
In other respects, the award of the Tribunal is sustained. No costs.
sj
To
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
The District Judge,
Kanyakumari at Nagercoil.