7. Aggrieved against the same, the appellant/first respondent 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 for the appellant would submit that the claimant has not proved her dependency with the deceased. The claimant is wife of one sheshayyar and living in a different place from that of the deceased. Hence, there is no dependency for the claimant over the deceased to claim compensation for the death of the deceased. The appellant as owner-cum-driver is having a license to drive LMV vehicles and the same is sufficient to drive the mini door vehicle. Hence, exonerating, the insurance company from its liability is illegal. Hence, the appellant prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
10.It is seen from the perusal of the records that the accident took place on 05.07.2005 at about 01.30 p.m at Devakottai to Kallal Main Road, near Velayuthapatinam, when the deceased was travelling in the Mini door vehicle belonging to A.R.C Parcel Services Ltd., bearing Registration No. TN 63 V 1725, loaded with parcels. The said vehicle was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner. Suddenly the door opened, due to which, the deceased fell down from the vehicle and suffered serious head injury and died.
11. From a perusal of the records, it is seen that the claimant has proved her dependency with the deceased. The claimant is the wife of one Sheshayyar and living in a different place from that of the deceased. Further, she has not produced any relevant document to prove the income of the deceased. But from the perusal of evidence of R.W.1, it is seen that the deceased received Rs.600/- as salary out of his employment under R.W.1 and apart from his employment, he also earned income through writing accounts. But, the Tribunal fixed Rs.2,000/- as monthly income of the deceased, which is high, in the opinion of this Court. Hence, this Court fixes Rs.1,300/- as monthly income of the deceased and after deducting 1/3rd amount towards his personal expenses and by adopting multiplier '8' , this Court arrives at Rs.83,200/- (Rs.1,300 x 2/3 x 12 x 8) rounded off to Rs.83,500/- as loss of income. Therefore, this Court is inclined to modify the award amount under the various heads:
S.No Description Amount awarded by Tribunal (Rs) Amount awarded by this Court (Rs) Award confirmed or enhanced or granted
1. For loss of income 1,28,000 83,500 modified
2. For Transportation 1,000 1,000 confirmed
3. For damages of clothes 500 500 confirmed
4. For loss of love and affection 10,000 10,000 confirmed
5. For Funeral Expenses 5,000 5,000 confirmed Total Rs.1,44,500/-
Rs.1,00,000 By modification a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded
12.R.W.1, Lakshman was cross examined. He has no valid licence for driving a goods vehicle. According to the Tribunal, the first respondent has violated the policy conditions, therefore, the second respondent/Insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation.
13.The Hon'ble Apex Court in a case between ?Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd,? has held that there is no requirement to obtain separate endorsement to drive transport vehicle, if a driver is holding licence to drive light motor vehicle. In view of the above Apex Court judgments, this Court is of the view that having licence to drive Light Motor Vehicles is sufficient to drive a mini door vehicle and therefore, there is no violation of policy condition. Hence, this Court directs the second respondent/Insurance Company to pay the compensation to the claimants.
14.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed by reducing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.69 of 2007, dated 29.02.2008, from Rs.1,44,500/- to Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only). Interest awarded by the Tribunal is confirmed. The second respondent/Insurance company is directed to deposit the entire compensation awarded by this Court with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of MCOP till the date of realization with costs of MCOP to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.69 of 2007, dated 29.02.2008 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub-Court, Devakottai, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such deposit being made, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire award amount along with accrued interests and costs after filing formal petition before the Tribunal. The Tribunal is directed to refund the amount deposited by the appellant/first respondent to him, directly, on the application filed by the appellant/first respondent. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub-Court, Devakottai.
2.The Record Keeper, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
.