AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C.S. Karnan, J.—The brief facts of the case are as follows:-
The appellants/claimants have filed a claim petition against the respondents stating that the first claimant''s wife viz., Masaiammal was travelling as a
loadwoman along with her belongings on the van on 08.02.1998 on the Udumalaipet Main Road and at that point of time, a lorry bearing
registration No. TAG-978 came at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the van; as a result, the said Masaiammal
and three others had succumbed to their injuries. Hence, the legal-heirs of Masaiammal have filed the claim petition against the driver, owner and
insurer of the lorry as well as the driver, owner and insurer of the van.
The third respondent/Insurance Company of the lorry had filed a counter statement rebutting the claim petition. The respondent denied the
averments in the claim that the accident was cause due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry. The averments in the claim regarding
age, income and occupation of the deceased was also not admitted.
On considering the averments of both parties, the Tribunal had framed two issues, viz.,
(i) Whether the accident had been committed by the first respondent or fourth respondent?
(ii) whether the claimants are entitled to receive compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation?
On the side of the claimants, two witnesses were examined and eight documents were marked, viz., F.I.R., R.C.S. order, postmortem report,
Motor Vehicle Inspector''s report, death certificate, legal-heirship certificate, copy of the R.C. Book and copy of insurance policy. On the side of
the respondents, no one was examined and no document was marked.
P.W. 1 had adduced evidence that on 18.02.1988, when his wife Masaiammal was travelling in the second respondent''s van, on the
Udumalaipet main Road, after finishing her coolie work, a lorry bearing registration No. TAG-978 driven by its driver in a reckless manner had
dashed against the van; as a result she had sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to her injuries. He further adduced evidence that the second
and third claimants are minor daughters of the deceased Masiammal. He further adduced evidence that the deceased was earning Rs. 3,000/- per
month as a coolie and at that time of accident, the age of the deceased was 25 years. Supporting his evidence, he had marked the above
mentioned documents. P.W. 2 had spoken on the same lines of P.W. 1 regarding mode of accident.
After considering the evidence of witnesses, the Tribunal directed the first and second respondents to pay the compensation of a sum of Rs.
2,58,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The claim as against the respondents 3 to 6 were dismissed.
Not being satisfied with the award passed by the Tribunal, the above appeal has been filed by the claimants.
The learned counsel for the claimants argued that the accident had been committed due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the first
respondent. He further submits that the F.I.R. has been registered against the driver of the lorry. The second and third respondents are owner and
insurer of the offending lorry. At the time of accident, the lorry was insured with the third respondent, viz., Oriental Insurance Company. Therefore,
the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation, but the Tribunal had directed the driver and owner of the lorry to pay the said compensation
amount, hence the learned counsel entreats the Court to give direction to the third respondent to pay the said compensation amount. He further
submits that the deceased was aged 25 years and she was coolie and earning Rs. 3,000/- per month. The Tribunal had not granted adequate
compensation to the claimants, who are husband and minor daughters of the deceased and hence, the learned counsel has sought additional
compensation of a sum of Rs. 42,000/- with interest since the negligence and liability have been proved against the offending vehicle driver, owner
and insurance company.
The learned counsel for the Insurance Company contended that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger and as such, as the conditions laid
down in the policy of insurance had been violated, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants. He further submits
that the claimants had not produced any document regarding earning proof of the deceased. He further submits that the Tribunal had already
granted adequate compensation under all the relevant heads and hence, the learned counsel entreats the Court to dismiss the appeal.
On verifying the factual position of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the impugned
orders of the Tribunal, this Court is of the view that the F.I.R. has been registered against the driver of the lorry and the insurance policy was in
force for the lorry. Therefore, the third respondent/Oriental Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation. The deceased''s age was 25 years
and she was involved in the construction work as a labourer and the second and third respondents are minor daughters and as such, this Court is
inclined to grant the original claim amount of a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- as it is found to be reasonable in the circumstances of the case. Hence, this
Court directs the third respondent/insurance company to pay the sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the claimants. This Court further directs the third
respondent to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,58,000/-, as ordered by the Tribunal, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the
claim petition till date of payment of compensation. This Court further directs the third respondent to pay additional compensation amount, as per
this Court''s order, of a sum of Rs. 42,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till date of payment of
compensation. This Court instructs the third respondent to pay the said compensation amount as mentioned above within a period of four weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
After such a deposit being made, it is open to each of the claimants to withdraw a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-, with proportionate interest thereon,
lying in the credit of M.C.O.P. No. 264 of 1998 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Subordinate Court, Udumalpet, after filing a
Memo, along with a copy of this order. In the result, the above appeal is allowed with the above modification. Consequently, the order passed in
M.C.O.P. No. 264 of 1998 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Subordinate Court, Udumalpet, dated 06.10.2003 is modified.
There is no order as to costs.