CMA.No.2138 of 2005 :
National Insurance Co. Ltd., 7-A, Paramathi Road, Namakkal 637 002. ... Appellant Vs.
1.S.Parimala
2.Minor S.Keerthi
3.Parijatham (Minor represented by mother & NF 1st respondent)
4.J.Saroja
5.The National Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office-I, TP Market Complex, Salem 1. ... Respondents CMA.No.2139 of 2005 :
National Insurance Co. Ltd., 7-A, Paramathi Road, Namakkal 637 002. ... Appellant Vs.
1.A.Selvakumari
2.Shobana
3.Minor Dayal Srinivasa (Minor represented by mother & NF Selvakumari)
4.J.Saroja
5.The National Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office-I, TP Market Complex, Salem 1. ... Respondents CMA.No.2140 of 2005 :
National Insurance Co. Ltd., 7-A, Paramathi Road, Namakkal 637 002. ... Appellant Vs.
1.Shobana
2.J.Saroja
3.The National Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office-I, TP Market Complex, Salem 1. ... Respondents CMA.No.2141 of 2005 :
National Insurance Co. Ltd., 7-A, Paramathi Road, Namakkal 637 002. ... Appellant Vs.
1.Minor Vishnu
2.J.Saroja
3.The National Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office-I, TP Market Complex, Salem 1. ... Respondents CMA.No.2142 of 2005 :
National Insurance Co. Ltd., 7-A, Paramathi Road, Namakkal 637 002. ... Appellant Vs.
1.K.Murugesan
2.J.Saroja
3.A.Selvakumari
4.Shobana
5.Minor Dayal Srinivas (Rep by R3)
6.The National Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office-I, TP Market Complex, Salem 1.
(Respondents 2 to 5 exparte before the lower Court) ... Respondents CMA.No.2142 of 2005 :
National Insurance Co. Ltd., 7-A, Paramathi Road, Namakkal 637 002. ... Appellant Vs.
1.K.Murugesan
2.J.Saroja
3.A.Selvakumari
4.Shobana
5.Minor Daya Srinivas (Rep by R3)
6.The National Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office-I, TP Market Complex, Salem 1.
(Respondents 2 to 5 exparte before the lower Court) ... Respondents CRP.No.1419 of 2005 :
National Insurance Co. Ltd., 7-A, Paramathi Road, Namakkal 637 002. ... Appellant Vs.
1.Minor Dayal Srinivas Rep. by mother & NF Selvakumari
2.J.Saroja
3.The National Insurance Co. Ltd., LRN Building, Saradha College Main Road, Salem 7. ... Respondents Common Prayer in CMAs: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree in MCOP.No.830 of 1997; MCOP.No.924 of 1997; MCOP.No.925 of 1997; MCOP.no.936 of 1997; MCOP.No.960 of 1998; MCOP.No.927 of 1997 dated 20.08.2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Salem.
Prayer in CRP No.1419 of 2005 : Civil Revision Petition filed under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the judgment and decree in MCOP.No.927 of 1997 dated 20.08.2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Salem.
For Appellant : Mr.N.Vijayaraghavan (in all CMAs) For Petitioner : Mr.N.Vijayaraghavan (in CRP) For Respondent-1 : Mr.S.Udhayakumar for (in CMA.Nos.2137/2005) for Mr.A.Muraleedharan 2139/2005 to 2141/2005 and CRP No.1419 of 2005 For Respondents 1 to 3 : Mr.S.Udhayakumar (in CMA.No.2138/2005) for Mr.A.Muraleedharan For Respondents 1 to 3 : Mr.B.Gopalakrishnan (in CMA.No.2142/2005) for Mr.R.Nalliappan COMMON JUDGMENT On 26.05.1997 at about 7.30 a.m. a certain Amarnath was on the wheels of his Maruti car bearing registration No.TN 27H 0002. Travelling along with him were his wife, 2 children, brother-in-law, and one minor Vishnu. About that time, a bus bearing No.TN28-B-9545 owned by one Saroja, the first respondent before the Tribunal in all the claim petitions, and driven by one Palanisamy and insured with the appellant, the Insurance Company, dashed against the Maruti car and it thereafter capsized. In the said accident the owner cum driver of the Maruti car namely Amarnath and his brother-in-law died and the other inmates of the car suffered injuries. Some of the passengers in the bus too suffered injuries. Seeking a compensation for the injuries suffered and also for loss of dependency owing to the demise of those who were dead, claim petitions were separately filed. One of the passenger of the bus filed his own petition in MCOP.No.960 of 1997. The various amounts that the claimants have claimed, and the ultimate awards passed by the Tribunal after consolidating all the claim petitions are tabulated below :
CMA.No.
MCOP. No. Injury / Death Amount Claimed (Rs.) Amount Awarded (Rs.) 2137 of 2005 830 of 1997 Injury (multiple injury) 5,00,000 33,263/-
2138 of 2005 924 of 1997 Death 24,00,000 7,73,308/-
2139 of 2005 925 of 1997 Death 13,50,000 (includes 2,50,000/- for car) 5,60,337/-
2140 of 2005 926 of 1997 Injury 4,00,000 45,475/-
2141 of 2005 936 of 1997 Injury 2,00,000 14,529/-
CRP.No.1419 of 2005 927 of 1997 Injury 2,00,000 6,175/-
CMA.No.2142 of 2005 (***) 960 of 1998 Injury 2,00,000 34,500/-
(***) The claimant is the passenger in the bus.
2. The contention that the Insurance Company took in its counter was that the accident had occasioned owing to the negligence of the driver of the car. According to it, the Maruti car attempted to overtake a trailer lorry and in the process suddenly came in the line of motion of the bus coming from the opposite direction and this resulted in the accident.
3. After carefully evaluating the evidence before that, the Tribunal has come to a categorical finding that the accident had occasioned owing to the negligence of the driver of the bus and awarded the sum as indicated in the tabulation above. This is challenged by the Insurance Company.
4. After hearing the counsel and perusing the material on record, I find no infirmity in the finding of the Tribunal on the point of fixing negligence on the driver of the offending bus. So far as quantum of compensation awarded is concerned, the award passed towards injuries to the passengers of the car or that of the bus, as the case may be, there is hardly any material to hold that the amount determined by the Tribunal does not represent a just and fair compensation. That leaves just two cases of fatal accident namely the one involved in CMA.2138 of 2005 and CMA.2139 of 2005.
5.CMA.No.2138 of 2005 :
This appeal involves death of one Suresh Babu, who is the brother-in-law of the aforesaid Amarnath. He is stated to be 30 years when he died that he was an auditor, and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month as his income. P.W.2 is the widow of the deceased and she has deposed that her husband was earlier working as a Manager in M/s.Lakshmi Vilas Bank and was earning Rs.8500/- per month. She has also produced Ext.P17, his graduation degree, besides Ext.P18 to EX.P20 to establish that he had passed C.A. and was also the member of the Institute of Chartered Accountant. Ext.P.23, the salary certificate issued by M/s.Lakshmi Vilas Bank indicates that Suresh Babu was earning about Rs.8,330/- in 1996. Ext.P.27 -income tax certificate indicates his annual income was Rs.95,476/-. The Tribunal had taken the amount indicated in Ext.P.27 income tax certificate as his annual income, and applying 16 as a multiplier, arrived at Rs.15,27,616/-[Rs.95,476x12], but reduced it by half, allotting the other half towards the personal expenses of the deceased. The rest of the amount awarded are towards non-pecuniary damages, and are fundamentally paltry. Even on the head of loss of dependency or support to the family, the Tribunal has been parsimonious in deducting 50% of the amount due towards personal expenses when conventionally Tribunal deducts only 1/3 of one's income towards personal expenses. In fine, I find the award passed for compensating the dependents of Suresh Babu in MCOP.No.924/1997 is in order.
CMA.No.2139 of 2005 :
This claim is made for the death of Amarnath who, as referred to earlier was the owner and driver of the Maruti car. P.W.1, his widow had produced Ext.P9 which is his income tax returns for the year 1997-98, as per which, the annual income of Amarnath was Rs.73,445/- He was 43 years at that time and the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 15. Again as in the earlier case, the Tribunal deducted 50% of his income towards personal expenses, which, to repeat is itself a huge discount for the insurance company.
6. To conclude, I find hardly any material to even contemplate and interfere with any part of the award and consequently, all the appeals as well as CRP.(NPD) No.1419 of 2005 were dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
7. The appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award amounts awarded by the Tribunal along with the accrued interest in the aforesaid claim petitions, less any amount already deposited, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw their respective shares, as apportioned by the Tribunal, on filing necessary application before the Tribunal.
27.01.2017 ds Index : Yes/No Internet:Yes/No To
1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Salem.
2.The Record Keeper, VR Section, High Court, Madras.
N.SESHASAYEE, J.
ds CMA.Nos. 2137 to 2142 of 2005 and CRP (NPD) No.1419 of 2005 27.01.2017