This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the Appellant/United India Insurance Company Limited against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.97 of 2004, dated 30.03.2005, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Ist Additional District Judge), Tirunelveli.
2.The case of the respondents 1 and 2 / claimants are that on 30.06.2002 at about 12:45 hrs, the Indica car bearing Registration No.TN72 V 5711, was driven by one Dr.Vijay, from Valliyoor to Tirunelveli Main Road and hit behind the lorry belonging to one M/s.ABT Limited, Coimbatore, bearing registration No.T.C.C.5295, insured with the appellant herein was parked on the road without any light signals. Due to the said impact, Dr.Vijay sustained multiple grievous injuries. The deceased Vijay, was taken to Tirunelveli Government Hospital for first aid. He was then transferred to Tiruvanthapuram Chitthirai Thirunaal Maharaja Hospital for further treatment. But unfortunately, he died on 09.07.2002, in the hospital. Crime No.150 of 2002, was registered against the deceased Vijay, before the MunneerPallam Police Station. At the time of accident, the deceased Vijay's avocation was doctor and he was a bachelor, aged 29 years. He was running Vibal Scan and diabetic Centre at Nagercoil. He was earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month. The first respondent herein is the father of the deceased. The second respondent herein is the mother of the deceased. The deceased have two sisters. The first and second respondents are the dependants of the deceased Vijay and they filed M.C.O.P.No.97 of 2004, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Ist Additional District Judge), Tirunelveli and claimed a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation.
3.The appellant had filed a counter and denied the manner of the accident. The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company contended that as a matter of fact the driver of the lorry has parked his vehicle on the extreme left side of the road with parking lamp switched on. He stated that the deceased Vijay drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and even without observing the traffic rules and regulations and dashed against the vehicle from behind. The deceased Vijay was solely responsible for the accident and he is a tort feasor. Therefore, the Insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the respondents 1 and 2.
4.The third respondent/the owner of the lorry remained ex-parte before the Tribunal.
5.Before the Tribunal, on the side of the respondents/claimants, two witnesses viz., P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and twenty seven documents viz., Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.27 were marked and on the side of the appellant/2nd respondent three witnesses viz., R.W.1 to R.W.3 were examined and four documents viz., Exs.R.1 to R.4 were marked.
6.The Tribunal, after considering the pleadings, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments of the counsel appearing on either side and also appreciating the evidence on record, directed the appellant/Insurance company and third respondent / the owner of the lorry jointly or severally to pay a sum of Rs.11,66,000/- as compensation to the claimants.
7.Against which, the appellant/Insurance Company has filed the present appeal.
8.Heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides and perused the materials available on record.
9.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company submitted that the deceased himself has driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the parked vehicle without noticing the said vehicle and he is alone responsible for the accident. He also denied the salary and income of the deceased as stated in the claim petition.
10.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/United India Insurance Company submitted that the mother of the deceased was aged 56 years at the time of the accident. Hence, the relevant multiplier '8' ought to have been applied and not '11'. There is no coverage for the owner of the vehicle, the deceased and there is no separate premium for personal coverage and the appellant/United India Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation, when the deceased himself has dashed against the lorry. The author of the salary certificate was also not examined. Hence, the learned counsel sought for dismissal of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
11.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the lorry was parked on the middle side of the road without any park lamp or signals. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 also submitted that based on the available oral and documentary evidences, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion and arrived at correct compensation under various heads and hence, it does not require any interference at the hands of this Court.
12.This Court has perused the materials and available materials on records. It is seen that P.W.1/father of the deceased has stated that the driver of the lorry had parked his vehicle without any indicator or any signal in the middle part of the road. P.W.2 had also stated that the lorry was parked without any signal or indicator and the deceased was driving the vehicle in a very slow manner. R.W.1, Gopalakrishnan, had stated that he merely called upon the police by getting a cell phone from the passenger of the bus. But the said passenger was not cross-examined and also the owner of the lorry was set exparte before the Tribunal. During the cross-examination, R.W.1 had admitted that there is already acquaintance between his lorry company and Muneerpallam Police Station.
13.From the perusal of the records, particularly, from Ex.P.24- Rough Sketch produced by the police, it is seen that the lorry was standing in the Tar road in the place of occurrence. But in the same document, the place of collusion/occurrence was marked as a different place, where both the vehicles directly colluded with each other. But in the documents produced before the Criminal Court, the respondent has taken a different version as the place of accident. There was no clear picture regarding the manner of accident and the place of accident. In the written complaint, the date of accident was shown as 30.02.2002, but the date of accident, as per claim petition is 30.06.2002. Ex.P.26 final report reached the Court on 11.11.2002 and the statement of RW1 received on 05.03.2003. But there was no evidence produced to show when the statement was received by the police. In the absence of any evidence by the respondents to prove that indicating lights were on and the lorry was standing in the mud portion of the road margin and it is seen from the rough sketch produced before this Court, wherein, it is shown that the lorry was standing in the Tar road blocking the way, and caused the accident. This Court is of the opinion that the owner of the lorry is liable to pay compensation for his negligence.
14.On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal had fixed a sum of Rs.10,56,000/-(Rs.8,000/-X11X12) towards Pecuniary loss by adopting multiplier '11' and awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection and awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards Medical bills and awarded a sum of Rs.93,000/- towards Hospital Bill and awarded a total sum of Rs.11,66,000/- as compensation to the claimants in M.C.O.P.No.97 of 2004.
15.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the correct multiplier is '8', but the Tribunal wrongly adopted multiplier '11'. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Varma Case reported in (2009) ACJ 1298-(Sarla Varma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation), the proper multiplier is '17', if the age of the deceased '29' is taken and if the age of the mother '53' is taken, the proper multiplier is '11'. Since the deceased is a bachelor, the mother's age is taken for adopting multiplier. Hence, in this case, the proper multiplier is 11 and the Tribunal has correctly fixed the multiplier.
16.In view of the above, this Court is of the view that there is no error or illegality in the finding of the Tribunal and the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation. Hence, there is no infirmity or irregularity in the award passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal deserves to be dismissed.
17.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the award made in M.C.O.P.No.97 of 2004, dated 30.03.2005, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Ist Additional District Judge), Tirunelveli, is hereby confirmed. The appellant/Insurance Company and third respondent / the owner of the lorry are jointly or severally, to deposit the award amount of Rs.11,66,000/-, as directed by the Tribunal, with accrued interests and costs, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, less the amount already deposited if, any and on such deposit being made, the respondents 1 and 2/claimants are permitted to withdraw their respective shares with proportionate interest and costs, as apportioned by the Tribunal after filing formal petition before the Tribunal. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
To
1.The learned Ist Additional District Judge, The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tirunelveli.
2.The Record Keeper, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
.