This civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge, Villupuram, in M.C.O.P.No.382 of 2006, dated 16.07.2009.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants would mainly contend that the Tribunal is erred in fixing the liability as against the first respondent alone on the ground that the driver of the first respondent has not possessed any valid driving license at the time of accident. It is further contended that the Tribunal ought to have fixed the liability on both the respondents and permit the second respondent to pay the amount to the claimants and recover the same from the first respondent. But the Tribunal has erroneously dismissed the claim as against the second respondent. The learned counsel for the appellants also contended that the Tribunal has not given proper reasons for rejection of the medical expenses to the tune of Rs.1.22 lakhs. Hence, the learned counsel for the appellants prayed that the award passed by the Tribunal has to be set aside and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has to be allowed.
3. Even though notice was served on the first respondent and his name is also printed in the cause list, he has not chosen to appear either in person or through counsel.
4. The learned counsel for the second respondent would mainly contend that at the time of accident, the driver of the first respondent has not possessed any valid driving license and hence, the Tribunal, correctly fixed the liability only as against the first respondent and dismissed the claim as against the second respondent. There is no illegality or infirmity in the award passed by the Tribunal and hence, the award passed by the Tribunal has to be confirmed and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has to be dismissed.
5. In this case, it is admitted on the side of the appellants that the driver of the first respondent was not having any valid driving license at the time of accident. Further, it is admitted by both sides that due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent's driver, the accident had occurred and during the time of accident, the vehicle of the first respondent was insured with the second respondent. Since there was a valid insurance policy issued by the second respondent to the first respondent's vehicle, the second respondent is liable to pay damages to the claimants and then, the second respondent is entitled to recover the same after paying the compensation amount to the claimants.
6. In this case, the Tribunal, after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, correctly fixed the age and income of the deceased and after adopting 13 multiplier, awarded just and reasonable compensation. In this case, the main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that even though medical bill was produced to the tune of Rs.1,22,502.50, the Tribunal has not awarded the same to the claimants. In para No.7 of the judgment of the Tribunal, it is stated as follows:-
"kDjhuh;fs; jug;gpy; ,we;J nghd md;dg;gDf;F kUj;Jtkidapy; itj;J rpfpr;ir mspj;jjpy; U:/1,22,502.50 f;fhd gpy;fs; jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ/ mtw;wpy; 26.09.2005 e; njjp U:/12,000/- Kk;. 27.09.2005 e; njjp U:/35,000/- Kk;. 28.09.2005 e; njjp U:/5,000/- Kk;. 29.09.2005 e;
njjp U:/6,000/- Kk;. Mf bkhj;jk; U:/48,000/- Kd;gzkhf brYj;jg;gl;ljhf Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sJ/"
7. On a perusal of the above, it is clear that on the side of the appellants, they have produced medical bills to the tune of Rs.1,22,502.50. The claimants have paid totally a sum of Rs.48,000/- towards advance amount on various dates for medical expenses. But, the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.15,000/- under the head of medical expenses. Therefore, after deducting the advance amount of Rs.48,000/- which was paid as advance from Rs.1,22,502.50, the remaining amount comes to Rs.74,502.50 rounded of to Rs.74,502/- and the said amount has to be awarded towards medical expenses.
8. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced as follows:-
9. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.9,63,110/- from Rs. 9,03,608/-. The second respondent/insurance company is directed to pay the modified award amount of Rs.9,63,110/- with interest at 7.5% per annum to the claimants. After paying the above said modified compensation amount to the claimants, the second respondent/insurance company is entitled to recover the same from the first respondent. The appellants/claimants are entitled to euqal shares in the modified award amount. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
21.03.2017 Internet : Yes Jrl To
1. The Principal District Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Villupuram.
2. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., No.92, East Cost Chamber First Floor, G.N. Chetty Road, T.Nagar, Chennai - 17.
3. The Record Keeper, V.R. Section, High Court, Madras.
G.CHOCKALINGAM, J.
Jrl C.M.A.No.3374 of 2010 21.03.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in