New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs Saroja and Others

T. Mathivanan, J.—Challenging the award of Rs. 4,50,000/-, dated 13.07.2009 and made in MCOP No. 2743 of 2002, on the file of the

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal(Principal District Judge), Tiruchirappalli, this appeal is preferred by the 2nd Respondent Insurance Company.

The facts which are absolutely necessary for the disposal of this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal are as under:

That on 21.09.2001 at about 21.15 hours, an ambassador car bearing registration No. TNX 8172 belonging to the first Respondent came fast on

Trichy to Dindigul main road and hit against the rear side of the TVS-50 moped near Pirattiyur power house sub road, which was driven by the

deceased velusamy and as result of which, he had sustained grievous injury and immediately after the occurrence he was removed to the

Government Headquarter Hospital, Trichy, wherein he had succumbed to injuries. Hence, the Respondents 1 to 5/Claimants had filed a claim

petition in MCOP No. 2743 of 2002 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal(Principal District Judge), Tiruchirappallai.

The first Respondent being the owner of the car, did not resist the claim petition. On the other hand, the 2nd Respondent Insurance Company

had resisted the claim petition on various grounds.

In order to substantiate their respective cases, the parties to the claim petition went on trial. While so, including the first Respondent/1st

Claimant, two witnesses were examined on the part of the claimants and during the course their examination, Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. On the

other hand, one witness was examined on behalf of the contesting Insurance Company and no documentary evidence was adduced on their side.

On evaluation of the evidences available on record, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal had proceeded to pass an award of Rs. 4,50,000/-

towards the compensation for the death of the deceased and the Respondents 1 and 2 were directed to pay this amount along with interest at the

rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition. Being aggrieved with the award, the 2nd Respondent Insurance Company stands before this Court with

this appeal.

As per the case of the Claimants, the deceased Velusamy was aged about 55 years at the time of accident and he was also employed as Head

Constable in Woraiyur Police Station, Trichy and was drawing salary of Rs. 9,000/- per month. The Tribunal had, however, determined the

monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 6,500/- without any basis. The Respondents/Claimants had not chosen to produce any documentary proof

to show that the deceased Velusamy was working as Head Constable and was earning a sum of Rs. 9,000/- per month towards his monthly

salary.

It is surprise to note that without any legal proof, the Tribunal had gone to the extent of fixing the monthly salary of the deceased at Rs. 6,500/-

per month, which alone has been challenged in this appeal by the 2nd Respondent Insurance Company.

The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant Insurance Company, while advancing his arguments, has drawn this Court''s attention to

paragraph 11 of the order of the Tribunal and submitted that the monthly income of the deceased fixed by the Claims Tribunal has not been

justified and hence, the entire award is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Respondents, while advancing her

argument has chosen to file the xerox copies of the Pay Certificate of the deceased for the month of September 2001, Pension Payment Order

P.P.O. No. FC506891/PO1 and UCO Bank Pass Book SB A/c No. 3862. All are in the form of xerox copies, which cannot be admitted at this

stage before the High Court without being confronted with the author of the documents.

On taking into consideration of the facts of the case and in order to take a fair decision to arrive at the just compensation, this Court is of

considered view that the Claim Petition in MCOP No. 2743 of 2002 may be remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh disposal, after receiving the

documentary evidences, which are sought to be produced by the Respondents/claimants. Because, the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 is a welfare

legislation, if really the contention of the claimants is true they must be duly compensated in proportionate to their loss. Admittedly the

Respondents/claimants 1 to 5 have not produced any supportive documents to prove the employment and the monthly salary of the deceased.

Under this circumstance, this Court has thought it fit that the claimants may be given an opportunity to adduce additional oral and documentary

evidences before the Tribunal.

In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the award, dated 13.07.2009 and made in MCOP No. 2743 of 2002 passed by

the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Tiruchirappalli, is set aside and the petition in MCOP No. 2743 of 2002 is

remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh disposal on all issues. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Tiruchirappalli, is

directed to provide opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence, both oral and documentary in addition to the evidences already produced

and dispose of the claim petition, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected

Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.