AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Manikumar, J.—Challenging the finding with regard to negligence and quantum of compensation, the Insurance Company has preferred
this appeal.
Brief facts leading to the appeal are as follows:
On 29.05.1999 about 9.15 p.m., in Pattukottai-Tanjore Main Road, south of Pappanadu Police Station near Kulanthisamy Paddy shop, when the
son of the respondents/claimants, Pandian was walking along with Radhakrishan and Murugan, an unidentified vehicles dashed against Pandian and
sped away from the scene of occurrence. He sustained injuries on his face, right hand, eye-brow and other parts of the body. He was given first-
aid in Government Hospital, Pattukcttai, and thereafter, treated in Thanjavur Medical College Hospital. Inspite of treatment, he succumbed to the
injuries. In this regard, a case in Cr.478/99 was registered u/s 304(A) I.P.C. According to the claimants, the. deceased was an agriculturist and
aged about 24 years at the time of accident. The parents of the deceased have claimed compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/-. The owner of the vehicle,
third respondent in this appeal remained ex-parte before the Tribunal.
The appellant-Insurance Company resisted the claim petition and contended that the vehicle owned by the third respondent was not involved in
the accident and put the respondents/claimants to strict proof. However, in the latter portion of the counter affidavit, stated that when the lorry was
coming in the opposite direction, the deceased ought to have seen the lorry and averted the accident. They submitted that the accident occurred
only due to negligence of the deceased and therefore, they are not liable to pay compensation. Without prejudice to the above contention, the
appellant disputed the age, income and avocation of the deceased.
Before the Tribunal, father of the deceased examined himself as PW.1 and PW.2 is an eye-witness to the accident. Ex.Pl - F.I.R., Ex.P2 -
Postmortem report and Ex.P3 - Motor Vehicle Inspectors Report were marked on the side of the respondents. On behalf of the appellant-
Insurance Company, the investigation Officer of the Company was examined as RW.1 and his report was marked as Ex.B1.
The Tribunal, on evaluation of pleadings and evidence, found that the driver of the vehicle owned by the third respondent and insured with the
appellant-Insurance Company was responsible for the accident and fastened the liability on the appellant-Insurance Company to pay compensation
of Rs. 2,25,000/- with 9% per annum from the date of claim till the date of realisation.
Heard Mr. R. Srinivasan, learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and Mr. T. Sekar, learned Counsel for the respondents 1 and
2.
Leaned Counsel for the appellant submitted that considering the fact that an unidentified vehicle was involved in the accident and the registration
number of the vehicle was not mentioned in the F.I.R., the Tribunal ought to have held that the vehicle owned by the third respondent and insured
with the Insurance Company, bearing registration NO.TN59-Z-3179 was not involved in the accident. He further submitted that respondents 1
and 2 have failed to prove that the above said vehicle was involved in the accident and therefore, the Tribunal ought not to have fastened the
liability on the Insurance Company. He also submitter that the deceased was aged about 24 years, a bachelor, at the time of accident and
considering the age of the claimants, application of multiplier ''17'' for computing dependancy compensation is on the higher side.
On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the accident occurred in the manner as set out in the claim
petition and since the accident occurred at 9.15 p.m., in the night, the informant could not mention the registration number and it is not possible to
furnish the name of the driver, who drove the vehicle at the time of accident. He further submitted that the deceased was an agricultural coolie and
the respondents, who were his dependents, have lost the family contribution, love and affection of their son. He further submitted that the
compensation of Rs. 2,25,000/- for the death of 24 year old man is not a bonanza and it does not warrant interference.
I have perused the materials on record and the impugned judgment.
In N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. Vs. M. Karumai Ammal and Others, , the Apex Court held as follows:
Road accidents are one of the top killers in our country, specially when truck and bus drivers operate nocturnally. this proverbial recklessness
often persuades the Courts, as has been observed by us earlier in other cases, to draw an initial presumption in several cases based on the
evidence of res ipsa loquitor. Accident Tribunals must take special care to see that innocent victims do not suffer and drivers and owners do not
escape liability merely because of some doubt here or some obscurity there. Save in plain cases, culpability must be inferred from the
circumstances where it is fairly reasonable. The Court should not succumb to niceties, technicalities and mytic maybes. We are emphasising this
aspect because we are often distressed by transport operators getting away with it thanks to judicial laxity, despite the tact that they do not
exercise sufficient disciplinary control over the drivers in the matter of careful driving. The heavy economic impact of culpable driving of public
transport must bring owner and driver to their responsibility to their neigbour. Indeed, the State must seriously consider no-fault liability by
legislation.
In Laxmi Gontiya and Another Vs. Nand Lal Tahalramani and Others, , a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has considered
the issue as to whether the non-mentioning of the Registration Number of the offending vehicle is fatal to the claim. In paragraphs 9 and 10 of the
judgment, the Court held as follows:
...Merely because the registration number, if not mentioned in the first information report, testimony of the witnesses cannot be discarded as it is
well settled that the first information report is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is not an encyclopaedia. The object of first information report
from the point of view of the informant is to set the criminal law in motion. From the point of view of investigating authorities, it is to obtain
information about the alleged criminal activity so as to able to take suitable steps for tracing and bringing to book the guilty party. In Kusum Kali v.
Bhailal Tiwari, M.A. No. 465 of 1995; decided on 04.11.1996, where the registration number was not mentioned in the first information report,
this Court has observed that mere non-mention of number in the first information report would not be fatal, if otherwise it is established that the
vehicle was involved in the accident.
In motor accident cases where the litigant persons are illiterate, if the Tribunal finds that the evidence led is not sufficient to establish the
involvement of the vehicle which causes the accident, in our opinion, it would be proper for the Tribunal giving a helping hand by directing the party
to lead evidence in accordance with the requirement of law, as it is well settled that a Court or Tribunal is not to act as an unpire watching a battle
of wits between the parties from a distance through telescope. The court is charged with the responsibility of guiding the procedure and apprising
the parties whenever necessary of their duties. As legal procedure is full of traps; if a litigant happens to stumble, the courts should discharge its
responsibility except when this is the result of an attempt to be clever and over-reach the court or to do something inequitable to the other side. In
the latter event the party concerned should be dealt with severely.
In Raju v. Sardar Singh and Anr. 2005 (III) ACC 138, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that even h the absence of Registration
number in the First Information Report, if there is clear oral evidence that the vehicle was involved in the accident, compensation has to be
awarded.
In the present case, though the appellant-Insurance Company has disputed the involvement of the vehicle, but in Paragraph No. 3 of the
affidavit, they have admitted the involvement of the vehicle insured with them and blamed the deceased for his negligence. Once they have admitted
the involvement of the vehicle in their counter affidavit filed before the Tribunal, it is not open to them to advance any argument contrary to their
pleading. The Insurance Company cannot approbate and reprobate.
It is the case of the claimants that the accident occurred in the night at 9.15 p.m., on the highway and the offending vehicle hit the injured and
sped away from the scene of occurrence. Considering the speed of vehicles driven on the highway, it may not be possible to note down the
registration number particularly when the accident had occurred in the night and to expect the complainant before the police to give the name of the
driver in the F.I.R., is unreasonable.
It is clear from the evidence that the accident had occurred on 9.15 p.m., and PW.2, eye-witness, had spoken about the manner of accident
that an unnumbered vehicle dashed against the deceased. Merely because the complainant has not mentioned the registration number of the vehicle
and the name of the driver in the F.I.R. does not mean that there is no accident. In fact, the police on investigation found that the vehicle bearing
registration No. TN 59 Z 3179 owned by the third respondent was involved in the accident.
On consideration of the pleadings and evidence, I do not find that the Tribunal has applied wrong principles of law in arriving at the conclusion
that the vehicle bearing registration No.TN59-Z-3179, was involved in the accident. There is no concrete evidence let in by the Company to prove
their version. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal with regard to negligence is confirmed.
As regards quantum of compensation, the Tribunal, taking into consideration the avocation of the deceased, fixed his monthly income at Rs.
1,500/- and after deducting 1/3 towards his personal expenses, applied multiplier ''17'' and awarded dependency compensation of Rs. 2,04,000/-.
In addition to that, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 5,00C/- for funeral expenses; Rs. 1,000/- for transportation and Rs. 15,000/ for
loss of love and affection to the parents.
In The Divisional Controller, KSRTC Vs. Mahadeva Shetty and Another, , in Paragraph 12, the Supreme Court has held that,
Broadly speaking, in the case of death the basis of compensation is loss of pecuniary benefits to the dependents of the deceased which includes
pecuniary benefits to the dependents of the deceased which includes pecuniary loss, expenses etc. and loss to the, estate.'' The object is to mitigate
hardship that has been caused to the legal representatives due to the sudden demise of the deceased in the accident. Compensation awarded
should not be inadequate and should neither be unreasonable, excessive, nor deficient. There can be no exact uniform rule for measuring the value
of human life and the measure of damage cannot be arrive at by precise mathematical calculation; but amount recoverable depends on broad facts
and circumstances of each case. It should neither be Punitive against whom claim is decreed nor should it be a source of profit for the person in
whose favour it is awarded.
In Paragraph 15 of the said judgment, the Supreme Court has held that,
Measure of damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculations. It would depend upon the particular facts and circumstances, and
attending peculiar or special features, if any. Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background
of ""just"" compensation which is the pivotal consideration. Though by use of the expression ""which appears to it to be just"", a wide discretion is
vested in the Tribunal, the determination has to be rational, to be done by 5 judicious approach and not the outcome of whims, wild guesses and
arbitrariness, and non-arbitrariness. If it is not so, it cannot be just.
Testing the quantum of compensation by applying the above said principles, I do not find that the compensation awarded to the parents for the
death of their son aged 24 years is a ""bonanza"", warranting interference. In view of the above, the findings of the Tribunal with regard to
negligence, liability and quantum of compensation are confirmed.
In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.