AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
HEAD,AMOUNT AWRDED BY THE TRIBUNAL(Rs),,
Loss of income,,,
Loss of dependency and future prospects,"8,77,500/-",,
Loss of future prospects,"1,00,000/-",,
Transport to hospital,"15,000/-",,
Extra Nourishment,"25,000/-",,
Medical Expenses,"7,27,230/-",,
Compensation for love & affection,"2,00,000/-",,
Compensation for loss of consortium,"1,00,000/-",,
Maintenance of 2 children(each Rs. 1,00,000/-)","2,00,000/-",,
Attendant Charges,"15,000/-",,
Loss of happiness,"50,000/-",,
Loss of estate,"1,00,000/-",,
Funeral expenses,"25,000/-",,
Total,"24,34,820/-",,
The lorry was driven at a moderate speed on the proper side of the road with sounding horn by taking necessary precautionary measures. The,,,
deceased was riding his Two Wheeler at a high speed without wearing helmet and when he attempted to overtake the lorry at a high speed, he lost",,,
control over his vehicle and he fell into the left rear wheel of the lorry. The driver of the lorry was no way responsible for the accident and the,,,
accident had occurred only due to rash and negligent riding of the deceased. The Tribunal ought to have fixed the contributory negligence on the,,,
deceased for his negligence. Hence, the award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside.",,,
The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4/ claimants 1 to 4 would submit that the accident occurred only due to the rash and,,,
negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. A criminal case was registered against the driver of the lorry and after completion of investigation, a",,,
charge sheet was also laid against him. Enquiry revealed that the accident was only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry.,,,
Therefore the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable.,,,
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.,,,
Points for consideration:-,,,
i) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle bearing Registration No. TN-72-AA-,,,
9100 ?,,,
ii) Whether the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?,,,
Point No. 1,,,
Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the accident occurred not due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending,,,
vehicle of the first respondent. Actually, the accident occurred only due the rash and negligent riding of deceased, who was riding his two wheeler.",,,
R.W.1 had deposed that, the lorry was being driven by him at a moderate speed on the proper side of the road and sounding horn and taking",,,
necessary precautions. The deceased was riding the motorcycle at a high speed without wearing helmet and attempted to overtake the lorry from,,,
its left side. At the time the deceased lost his control over his vehicle on account of the high speed and uneven condition of the road and fell into the,,,
left rear wheel of the lorry, which was stopped on the spot immediately. The driver of the lorry was in no way responsible for the accident and the",,,
accident occurred only due to rash and negligent ridding of the deceased. Therefore, the appellant/Insurance Company is not liable to pay",,,
compensation. Further he would submit, even otherwise the deceased also contributed his negligence to the accident. Therefore, the Tribunal had",,,
failed to look into the facts and without assigning any sound reason fastened the liability on the driver of the first respondent. The claimants have not,,,
examined any eye witness and P.W.1 and P.W.2 had not deposed that they had seen the accident. Therefore, only evidence is R.W.1, who is the",,,
driver of the offending vehicle, who had deposed the manner of the accident. Therefore the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent riding",,,
of the deceased. The Tribunal ought to have fixed contributory negligence on the deceased to the accident.,,,
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants would submit that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent",,,
driving of the driver of the lorry. FIR was registered against the driver of the lorry and charge sheet was also laid against him. P.W.2, who is the",,,
brother of the deceased, deposed that when he was in Madurai, his brother-deceased himself telephoned him and narrated the manner of the",,,
accident and he immediately rushed to Tirunelveli and thereafter admitted him in Devadoss Multi Speciality Hospital at Madurai for treatment.,,,
Though P.W.2 had not seen the accident, his evidence shows that the deceased had narrated the manner of accident to him and he was in hospital",,,
with the deceased while the deceased was taking treatment. So, there is no reason to disagree his evidence. Admittedly left rear wheel of the lorry",,,
ran over the deceased. From the oral and documentary evidence, it is clear that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the",,,
driver of the lorry and the Tribunal has correctly come to the conclusion that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the,,,
driver of the lorry. No contributory negligence on the part of the deceased was proved by the appellant. Accordingly, this point is answered.",,,
Point No. 2,,,
As far as the quantum of the compensation is concerned, though the claimants, in their claim petition, had stated that the deceased was doing",,,
business and running a company Nikki Sports Wear and but no valid document was produced and proved the same as the manner known to law.,,,
Therefore, the Tribunal had correctly fixed notional income as Rs.6500/- per month. As per Ex.P.11, Driving Licence, the date of birth of the",,,
deceased is mentioned as 15.05.1974 and the date of accident is on 16.06.2014. Therefore, on the date of the accident the deceased had",,,
completed 40 years of age. But, the Tribunal failed to consider this and simply relied on the postmortem certificate and fixed the age of the",,,
deceased as 38. Therefore, the multiplier of 15 was adopted.",,,
As stated above, on the date of the accident the deceased had completed 40 years, the multiplier of 14 would apply. Therefore loss of income",,,
would be Rs.6500 X 14 X 12 =Rs.10,92,000/-.",,,
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% and age between 40 and 50, future prospects has to be taken as 30%. In this case, on the",,,
date of accident the deceased had completed 40 years of age, hence, 30% of monthly income has been taken into consideration. Accordingly,",,,
future prospects would come to Rs.1950X14X12 =Rs.3,27,600/-. Therefore, the loss of income Rs.10,92,000/- + future prospects",,,
Rs.3,27,600/- =Rs.14,19,600/- .",,,
Since, there are four dependants, 1/4 of the income has to be deducted for his personal expenses. Therefore, the loss of income would be",,,
Rs.8,19,000/-.(Rs.10,92,000 - Rs.2,73,000) and future prospects would be Rs.2,45,700/- (Rs.3,27,600 - Rs.81,900)",,,
The Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- towards extra nutritious. The deceased was fully under treatment. Therefore the award towards extra",,,
nutritious is reduced to Rs.5,000/- from Rs.25,000/-.",,,
The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 15,000/- towards attendant charges which is seems to be higher, so the same is reduced to Rs. 5,000/-.",,,
The Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- towards transportation, Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.7,27,320/- towards medical",,,
expenses, Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses. The amount awarded under the above five heads",,,
appear to be reasonable.,,,
The Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of estate, which seems to be very high, therefore, it is reduced to Rs. 5,000/-.",,,
The compensation claimed by the claimant, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and the compensation enhanced by this Court are as",,,
HEAD,"AMOUNT CLAIMED BY THE
CLAIMANT (Rs.)","AMOUNT AWRDED BY THE
TRIBUNAL(Rs)","AMOUNT AWARDED BY
THIS COURT (Rs.)
Loss of income,"62,00,000/-",,"8,19,000/-
Loss of dependency and future
prospects",-,"8,77,500/-",-
Loss of future prospects,-,"1,00,000/-","2,45,700/-
Transport to hospital,"25,000/-","15,000/-","15,000/-
Extra Nourishment,"50,000/-","25,000/-","5,000/-
Medical Expenses,"10,000/-","7,27,230/-","7,27,320/-
Compensation for love & affection,"5,00,000/-","2,00,000/-","2,00,000/-
Compensation for loss of
consortium","4,00,000/-","1,00,000/-","1,00,000/-
Maintenance of 2 children(each
Rs.1,00,000/-)",-,"2,00,000/-",-
Attendant Charges,,"15,000/-","5,000/-
Compensation for funeral and
Transport Expenses","25,000/-",-,-
Loss of happiness,-,"50,000/-",-
Loss of estate,-,"1,00,000/-","5,000/-
Funeral expenses,-,"25,000/-","25,000/-
Total,"82,00,000/-","24,34,820/-","21,46,750/-
Claim restricted to,"50,00,000/-",-,-