Vs
1.P.Lakshmi .. 1st Respondent/Petitioner
2.S.Selvaraj .. 2nd Respondent/1st Respondent Prayer:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under
Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act 1998, against the award dated 28.09.2007, passed in M.C.O.P.No.86 of 2004 by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court [Motor Accident Claims Tribunal], Ramanathapuram.
All these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been filed by the appellant/second respondent against the common award dated 28.09.2007, passed in M.C.O.P.Nos.86, 91, 89, 88, 90 and 87 of 2004 by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court [Motor Accident Claims Tribunal], Ramanathapuram.
2.All these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals arise out of compensation awarded due to the accident that took place on 03.12.2002. The issue involved in all these matters is one and the same and therefore, all the cases are disposed of by this common judgment.
3.For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to according to their litigative status before the Tribunal.
4.According to the claimants, on 03.12.2002 at 11.30 a.m., near Kallikulam Kalangarai, they were travelling in a Van, bearing Registration No.TN-65-4568 belonging to the second respondent along with agricultural products. The driver of the van was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and due to the high speed, at which, the driver was driving, the Van got capsized on the right side of the road in groove and all the claimants sustained multiple injuries and they took treatment in the Hospitals and claimed compensation for the injuries suffered in the accident. According to the claimants, they travelled in the Van as owner of the goods. The second respondent/appellant is the insurer of the Vehicle. Therefore, the claimants claimed the respective compensation amounts in their claim petitions against the second respondent/appellant.
5.According to the second respondent/appellant, the vehicle is a goods carriage and the claimants are gratuitous passengers and travelled in violation of policy conditions. Further, as per Policy, only six persons can travel in the Van, whereas 35 persons were travelled in the Van as unauthorised passengers. Therefore, the second respondent/appellant is not liable to pay any compensation.
6.The first respondent in all the claim petitions were set ex-parte before the Tribunal.
7.Before the Tribunal, all the claimants and two Doctors were examined as P.Ws.1 to 9 and marked 18 documents as Exs.A.1 to A.18. The second respondent/appellant examined one Karuppiah, Assistant of the Insurance Company as R.W.1 and marked Ex.B.1, a copy of the Insurance Policy.
8.The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence and Exs.A.1 ? F.I.R. A.2 ? Rough Sketch and A.3 ? Final Report, held that the accident took place only due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the first respondent. The Tribunal also held that the claimants travelled only as gratuitous passengers. In view of the said finding and considering the evidence of P.W.8 and P.W.9 ? Doctors and Ex.A.12 ? Wound Certificate, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/- each for the claimants in M.C.O.P.Nos.86, 88 to 90 and 92 of 2004. In respect of M.C.O.P.Nos.87 and 91 of 2004, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.57,500/- each to the claimants. The Tribunal directed both the first respondent and the second respondent/appellant to pay compensation in M.C.O.P.Nos.86 to 91 of 2004. In respect of M.C.O.P.No.92 of 2004, the Tribunal held that the claimant did not travel as owner of goods and therefore, the first respondent alone is liable to pay the compensation. Aggrieved by the said award, dated 28.09.2007, passed in M.C.O.P.Nos.86 to 91 of 2004, the appellant has come out with the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeals.
9.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
10.From the materials available on record, it is seen that all the claimants in these appeals travelled along with their goods as owners of the goods. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/second respondent that the claimants are gratuitous passengers/unauthorised passengers is untenable and unsustainable. On evidence, the Tribunal has held that they travelled as owners of the goods. Therefore, the said finding is confirmed. As far as the compensation arrived at in M.C.O.P.Nos.86 and 88 to 90 of 2004 is concerned, the same is just compensation and the Tribunal has appreciated all the materials on record in proper perspective and awarded the said compensation. In view of the same, C.M.A.(MD)Nos.985, 987, 988 and 989 of 2008 are dismissed as devoid of merits. No costs.
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.986 and 990 of 2008:
11.As far as M.C.O.P.Nos.87 and 91 of 2004 [C.M.A.(MD)Nos.986 and 990 of 2008] are concerned, the Tribunal erred in applying the multiplier and awarded a sum of Rs.40,800/- to the claimants therein towards loss of income. The Tribunal accepted the evidence of the Doctors that the claimants suffered 35% disability. Accepting the Medical Certificate, the Tribunal erroneously applied the multiplier and awarded 10% of the amount so arrived at. The method adopted by the Tribunal is erroneous one. Therefore, the said award is set aside. There is no dispute that the claimants in both M.C.O.P.Nos.87 and 91 of 2004 suffered 35% disability. Therefore, Rs.1,000/- is fixed for each percentage of disability and thus, the disability compensation would be Rs.35,000/- [Rs.1,000 x 35%]. In all other aspects, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is confirmed.
12.With the above modification, C.M.A.(MD)Nos.986 and 990 of 2008 are partly allowed. The appellant is directed to deposit the respective entire award amount(s) to the credit of M.C.O.P.Nos.86, 91, 89, 88, 90 and 87 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Ramanathapuram, less the amount already deposited, if any, along with interest @ 9.5% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realisation and proportionate costs, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such deposit, the Tribunal is directed to transfer the respective award amount(s) to the Personal Savings Bank Account Number of the respective claimants, after getting their Account Details, within a period of two weeks thereafter. No costs.
To
1.The Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ramanathapuram.
2.The Record Keeper, V.R. Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai..