AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
HEAD,AMOUNT CLAIMED BY THE CLAIMANT (Rs.),,
Loss of income,"30,00,000/-",,
Loss of love and affection,"1,75,000/-",,
Loss of expectation of deceased,"2,00,000/-",,
Loss of consortium,"1,00,000/-",,
Loss of estate,"5,00,000/-",,
Funeral expenses,"25,000/-",,
Total,"40,00,000/-",,
assessee. He was having Pan Card and Passport and he frequently used to take his family members to foreign countries. Due to the demise of the,,,
deceased the claimants, lost the income and therefore, the first and second respondents are liable to pay compensation.",,,
The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would submit that, the accident occurred not due to rash and negligent driving of the",,,
driver of the lorry bearing Registration No.TAA 9612. The accident occurred only due to negligence on the part of the driver of the third,,,
respondent. Further, the income of the deceased Rs. 20,000/- per month was not proved and the documents produced by the claimants are not",,,
genuine. The Tribunal correctly disbelieved the documents produced by the claimants and fixed Rs.6,000/- as notional monthly income of the",,,
deceased and the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and needs no interference of this Court.,,,
Points for consideration:-,,,
i) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent lorry bearing Registration No.TAA 9612?,,,
ii) Whether the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?,,,
Point No.1,,,
In order to prove the manner of the accident, the claimants examined P.W.2, who is one of the co-passengers in the Gypsy at the time of the",,,
accident. He had spoken about the manner of the accident as stated in the claim petition and the documents marked before the Tribunal shows that,,,
a case was registered against the driver of first respondent and F.I.R was lodged against him and after investigation the jurisdictional Police had laid,,,
Charge sheet against the driver of the first respondent and the driver of the first respondent appeared before the Judicial Magistrate, Tirumangalam",,,
and admitted the case and also paid the fine amount. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has arrived at an",,,
independent conclusion from the available evidence. However, respondents 1 and 2 had not examined any witness on their side to deny the",,,
manner of the accident. The first and second respondents ought to have examined the driver of the first respondent to disprove the manner of,,,
accident. The driver who appeared before the Judicial Magistrate, not appeared before the Tribunal for raising any serious objections with regard",,,
to the manner of accident. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.2, when there was no contra evidence let in on the side",,,
of the respondents. From the above said materials, this Court also comes to the conclusion that the accident occurred only due to rash and",,,
negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent lorry bearing Registration No.TAA 9612 and the Tribunal has also correctly fixed the liability,,,
on the first and second respondents. Accordingly this point is answered.,,,
Point No.2,,,
As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, according to the claimants, the deceased and his wife/first claimant were partners of",,,
M/s.S.M.V. Thirupathi Raja. Prior to the accident, the deceased was a dealer of the Atlas Cycle company. The deceased owned 3.8 acres of wet",,,
lands at Rajapalayam village and he was cultivating on his own by raising paddy and sugar cane, besides, he had taken 10 acres of agricultural",,,
lands on lease and was doing agriculture and getting from that sources. The deceased carried on the business of purchasing and selling of bicycles,,,
and spare parts under partnership firm and in the name and style of M/s.S.M.V. Thirupathi Raja at Rajapalayam, which was once his family",,,
business. Due to the accident, the family lost monthly income of Rs.20,000/- which the deceased was earning.",,,
To prove the income of the deceased, the first claimant/wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1 and through her Exs.P.8 to Exs.P.29",,,
were marked. The learned counsel for the claimants would submit that, though P.W.1 had produced documents, the Tribunal had come to the",,,
conclusion that the documents had not been proved. Therefore, the Tribunal has fixed at Rs.6,000/- as notional monthly income of the deceased",,,
which needs interference of this Court.,,,
We perused the evidence of P.W.1 and Exs.P.8 to Exs.P.29. Perusal of Ex.P.8 shows that it is the patta and stands in the name of the,,,
claimants and it was also obtained after the accident.No documents like Adangal were produced to show that the deceased was doing agriculture,,,
and he was getting income from the lease land also. The income from the partnership business is concerned, P.W.1 produced Exs.P.10 to",,,
Exs.P.16. Exs.P.10 and 11 are the invoices, Ex.P.12 is the letter sent from the M/s.S.M.V. Thirupathi Raja to Commercial Tax Office and",,,
Ex.P.13 is the letter sent by the Commercial Tax Office to M/s.S.M.V. Thirupathi Raja. Ex.P.14 is the proceedings of the Commercial Tax,,,
Officer. However, no documents were produced to prove that the partnership firm stood in the name of deceased Jeganathan. Ex.P.15 the Pan",,,
card, Ex.P.16 is the assessment order. Exs.P.18 and 19 are the income tax returns submitted by M/s.S.M.V. Thirupathi Raja but no income tax",,,
returns had been submitted in the individual capacity. Ex.P.22 is the Form No.20 submitted to the Income Tax Department and Exs.P.23, 24 and",,,
25 are the income tax challans. Ex.P.16 is the passport of the deceased. Exs.P.27,28 and 29 are the Visas. However, all the documents produced",,,
by the claimants related to the year 1998 - 2000. The partnership was executed on 03.08.1990, but no documents were produced relating to the",,,
year between 1992 and 1998, which creates suspicion. Perusal of Ex.P.9 partnership deed shows, it is an unregistered document, the stamps used",,,
for the partnership deed appears to have been in different dates and obtained from different vendors and the Registration certificate of the firm had,,,
also not been filed, which shows that they had created the documents only for the purpose of claiming higher compensation. Therefore, the",,,
Tribunal has correctly arrived at the conclusion that the claimants have not proved the income of the deceased. Further they had not produced any,,,
statement of accounts or any ledgers with respect to the business transactions. As already stated, the claimants had not proved the income from the",,,
agricultural sources and business as the manner known to law and in the absence of such proof, we can not fix the income as claimed in the claim",,,
petition.,,,
Considering all the aspects, it would be appropriate to fix Rs.7,500/- as notional monthly income of the deceased. With regard to the age of",,,
the deceased, as per Ex.P.15, the PAN Card, the date of birth of deceased shown as 18.10.1961 and the date of accident is on 02.09.1999.",,,
Hence, the age of the deceased at the time of accident would be 38 and 15 multiplier has to be adopted. Accordingly, the loss of income of the",,,
deceased would be Rs.7500X12X15 = Rs.13,50,000/- 15.As per the judgment in Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and others reported in",,,
2013 ACJ 1403 (SC), the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that even in a case where persons are not having any permanent income, future",,,
prospects will have to be taken into consideration and in the age group upto 40, future prospects has to be taken as 50% from the income. So, in",,,
this case the age of the deceased at the time of accident is 38 and 50% of the notional monthly income is taken for calculating future prospects.,,,
Therefore, the future prospects would be Rs.3750X12X15 = Rs.6,75,000/-.",,,
HEAD,"AMOUNT CLAIMED BY THE
CLAIMANT (Rs.)","AMOUNT AWRDED BY THE
TRIBUNAL(Rs)","AMOUNT AWARDED BY THIS
COURT (Rs.)
Loss of income,"30,00,000/-","7,68,000/-","9,00,000/-
Loss of future prospects,-,-,"4,50,000/-
Transportation and
damages to cloths",-,-,"10,000/-
Loss of love and affection,"1,75,000/-","10,000/-","1,00,000/-
Loss of expectation of
deceased","2,00,000/-",-,-
Loss of consortium,"1,00,000/-","10,000/-","1,00,000/-
Loss of estate,"5,00,000/-",,"5,000/-
Funeral expenses,"25,000/-","2,000/-","25,000/-
Total,"40,00,000/-","7,90,000/-","15,90,000/-