United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Alex and Others

V. Kanagaraj, J.—The above appeal is directed against the award dated 30th January, 2002 made in MCOP No. 29 of 2000 by the I Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I Additional Sub-Court), Gobichettipalayam.

On a perusal of the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned Counsel for both, it comes to be known that the first respondent herein has filed the claim petition before the I Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gobichettipalayam claiming a sum of Rs. 9 lakh towards compensation for the grievous injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal below having framed its own points for consideration, would conduct a thorough inquiry into the matter wherein on behalf of the claimants they would examine three witnesses for oral evidence as PWs 1 to 3 and would mark nine documents for documentary evidence as Exts. A-l to A-9 and on behalf of the respondents, the evidence adduced on their behalf, in all, is nil. Thereupon, in consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal below would hold that the accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle and would award a sum of Rs. 8,02,480 towards compensation to the claimant. Aggrieved, the Insurance Company of the vehicle involved in the accident, has come forward to prefer the above civil miscellaneous appeal on certain grounds as brought forth in the grounds of appeal.

Though many grounds have been urged in the grounds of appeal, during arguments, the learned Counsel for the appellant would confine himself to the argument that the Tribunal below has erred in notionally fixing the daily wages of the first respondent at Rs. 140 so as to award a sum of Rs. 5,64,480 towards loss of income. The learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that excepting Ext. P-7 salary certificate, no other documents were filed to prove his income and that Ext. P-7 itself appears to be a fabricated document for the purpose of the case.

On the contrary, on the part of the first respondent/claimant, the learned Counsel would sail along with the award of the Tribunal below and would pray to dismiss the above civil miscellaneous appeal.

In consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the first respondent/ claimant, it comes to be known that PW 2 who claimed to be the Manager of M/s. G.T.R. Industries wherein the claimant is alleged to have been working as turner has not produced any document to prove that he was authorised to adduce evidence on behalf of the said management. The Tribunal below solely relying on the evidence of PW 2 and Ext. P-7, the salary certificate, has arrived at the conclusion that the first respondent/ claimant is earning a sum of Rs. 4,200 per month i.e., a sum of Rs. 140 per day, which in the considered opinion of this Court is on the higher side since, admittedly, the claimant is only a turner and hence it would be appropriate to fix his daily wages at Rs. 120, instead of Rs. 140 as wrongly fixed by the Tribunal below, which would serve the ends of justice.

Accordingly, the amount arrived at by the Tribunal below under the head of loss of income at Rs. 5,64,480 should be reduced in view of the above finding of this Court. Therefore, while applying the multiplier 16 as rightly adopted by the Tribunal below and taking the daily wages of the claimant at Rs. 120, the amount under this head would come to Rs. 4,83,840.

The discussion held and the conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal below regarding amounts awarded under all other heads are in the expected lines of law and, therefore, they do not require any interference by this Court.

In result:

(i) The above civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed in part.

(ii) The award dated 30th January, 2002 made in MCOP No. 29 of 2000 by the 1 Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I Additional Sub-Court), Gobichettipalayam is modified to the extent indicated above.

(iii) In all other respects, the award of the Tribunal below is upheld.

(iv) The claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire amount with interest and costs.

However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order, as to costs. Consequently, C.M.P. No. 16675 of 2004 is closed.