AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Vimala, J.—Saravanan, the deceased, aged 7 years, a student died in an accident that took place on 26.09.2004. The parents, aged 38 and 29 respectively, filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/-.
The claim was contested on the ground that the vehicle of the third respondent bearing Registration No. TN-67-C-4386 was not involved in the accident on 26.09.2004.
The Tribunal, on consideration of materials placed before it, came to the conclusion that it is only the vehicle belonging to the third respondent which got involved in the accident and that the accident took place only on account of rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle. The quantum of compensation awarded was Rs.1,60,000/-, which is under the following break- up:
Taking the notional income at Rs. 10,000/- per annum, adopting multiplier of 15, the pecuniary loss was estimated at Rs. 1,50,000/-. Awarding a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 8,000/- towards loss of love and affection, the total amount awarded was Rs. 1,60,000/-.
These findings are under challenge in this appeal.
The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the claim made by the parents are fake claim and the vehicle of the insured was not at all involved in the accident. It is pointed out that District Crime Branch, Madurai has registered a case in Crime No. 27 of 2006 for the alleged offence under Section 420 IPC in respect of the fake claims, and the matter is pending investigation.
In order to appreciate the contentions raised, it is necessary to look into the reasoning given by the Tribunal to come to a conclusion that the vehicle belonging to the insured got involved in the accident. The Tribunal has relied upon the evidence of P.W.1, the father of the deceased, and Ex.P1 ? First Information Report. It has been found that the evidence of P.W.1 tallied with the averments made in the First Information Report. The Tribunal has made a special mention about the complaint having been lodged on the same day of accident, i.e., on 26.09.2004 and the First Information Report also having been laid on the same day. From the evidence of R.W.1, the Tribunal inferred that it is only the car belonging to the insured had been detained while other cars were let off. Relying upon the cumulative circumstances, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that it is only the vehicle belonging to the insured which got involved in the accident.
It is not in dispute that the complaint made regarding fake claim has been referred as mistake of fact. Therefore, when the evidence regarding fake claim has been dismissed, the finding of the Tribunal deserves confirmation.
The next contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the amount of compensation awarded is exorbitant. The break-up details indicated in the order of the Tribunal showing the grant of compensation under three heads, would go to show that the compensation awarded is fair and reasonable and it cannot be said to be excessive. The modest amount of Rs. 8,000/- has been awarded towards loss of love and affection and a meagre amount of Rs. 2,000/- has been awarded towards funeral expenses. Loss on account of future prospects awarded is also modest which is at Rs. 1,50,000/-. Therefore, the contention regarding quantum also has to be rejected.
In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No Costs.