AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Devadass
This is insurer''s appeal as against the award of total compensation of Rs. 8,11,000/- by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Judge),
Bhavani. The learned counsel would find fault with the order of the Tribunal in holding the lorry driver for the negligence, because the road on
which the accident had taken place is wide enough, which suggests contributory negligence on the part of the bike rider.
According to the learned counsel for the insurer, the Tribunal has adopted the multiplier ''18''. While doing so, it had lost sight of the fact that the
dependants, who are parents and brother of the deceased, are earning members, and more particularly, the deceased died a bachelor. The learned
counsel cited National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shyam Singh and others [2011 SCCL.COM 465] and would submit that in the facts and
circumstances, the multiplier ''8'' shall be taken.
The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that on the evidence adduced, the Tribunal has rightly fastened the negligence on the lorry
driver and the deceased and the dependants since lived in a joint family, the bachelor deceased toiled and contributing all his income, the multiplier
''18'' chosen by the Tribunal is in accordance with law.
I have anxiously considered the rival submissions.
On 23.11.2000, at about 10.15 am, Saravanan, the deceased travelled in the bike driven by his brother, who also died in the very same road
accident, for whom compensation has been claimed in a separate petition. The lorry was driven by the first respondent in the claim petition. It is
owned by the second respondent. That has been insured with the appellant.
It is stated in Ex.P1 _ FIR that the lorry came in a rash and negligent manner and hit on the two wheeler and that has resulted in the accident.
Saravanan was declared dead while he was taken to the hospital. PW1 _ Rajamanickam is not an eye witness to the accident. The voluminous
documentary evidence speaks volumes about the manner of accident. Ex.P1 mentions about the lorry driver being responsible for the accident.
Ex.P2 _ sketch map reveals that the accident spot is wide enough. However, the lorry had struck the two-wheeler. After investigation, Ex.P6 _
Final Report was filed as against the lorry driver holding him solely responsible for this road accident. In the Criminal Court, the lorry driver had
admitted his guilt (See Ex.P7 _ Criminal Court judgment). As against this positive evidence, there is no evidence on the side of the insurer. No
effort has been taken by the insurance company to examine the lorry driver to speak to their version of the road accident.
Now, considering the evidence adduced before the Tribunal, this Court comes to the irresistible conclusion that the lorry driver is responsible for
this accident.
Ex.P5 _ Post Mortem Certificate mentions his age as 22. It was not disputed by the insurer before the Tribunal.
PW1 _ Rajamanickam, father of the deceased, is running a provision store. The deceased died a bachelor. He and his brothers have jointly
carried out the business. The Tribunal has taken the deceased''s income at Rs. 5,000/- p.m. It is to be noted that the deceased died at a young
age. He had wholly devoted himself to the family business. Taking into account these aspects, the Tribunal has adopted the multiplier ''18''.
As per Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, the multiplier is ''18''. Now, the learned counsel for the
insurer mainly contends that it should be ''8'' and not ''18''. On this aspect, the learned counsel would stress that the deceased died a bachelor.
Even in Sarla Verma (supra), the Apex Court has given a rider that though in a fatal accident case the deceased was a bachelor, who is presumed
to be or taken to be a spendthrift eating major part of the income for himself, there will be an occasion to take a major part of amount towards his
personal expenses. However, in the same Sarla Verma case (supra), it was held that, if the family of the deceased was large in size, it may not be
the position. In such circumstances, in that particular case, the Apex Court held that the Tribunal in deducting 1/3rd from the income was justified.
Saravanan died a bachelor. Then he was 22 years old. He lived in the joint family. Rajamanickam, first respondent and second respondent
mother are also aged. They are running a provision stores and the deceased also technically qualified. Considering these aspects, the Tribunal
having deducted 1/3rd towards the expenses of the deceased is in accordance with law. In the result, this appeal is dismissed, upholding the award
of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Bhavani passed in M.C.O.P. No. 130 of 2001 on 29.1.2004. The respondents are
permitted to withdraw the balance amount in deposit. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P. No. 414 of 2005 is closed.