-in-nutshell, necessary for the disposal of these appeals, are as follows:
2.1. On 09.03.2008 at about 07.00 p.m., one K.Balusamy, aged 32 years, rode a Hero Honda motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-47-Q-6872 and his daughter, Vinotha, aged 7 years, travelled as a pillion rider and they were proceeding from Moolakattanur to Vadakkupalayam and at that time, a Tractor bearing Registration No.TN-47-H-6422 attached with a Trailer bearing Registration No.TN-47-A-0831 came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle, due to which, the said Balusamy sustained grievous injuries all over his body and died on the spot and Vinodha sustained multiple grievous injuries and she was taken to Government Hospital, Karur, but she died. M.C.O.P.Nos.169 and 170 of 2008 were filed by the dependents of both the deceased Vinotha and Balusamy, claiming a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only) and a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only) respectively. Another pillion rider, namely, Karthick, aged 14 years, also sustained grievous injuries and he was taken to G.C.Hospital, Karur and thereafter, he was admitted in Kovai Medical Centre Hospital, Coimbatore, wherein he took treatment as an inpatient from 10.03.2008 to 16.03.2008. He also filed M.C.O.P.No.184 of 2008 claiming a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only) as compensation.
2.2. The owners of the Tractor as well as the driver of the Tractor remained exparte. However, the appellant-Insurance Company filed the counter statement denying all the averments stated in the claim petitions and contended that the accident took place only due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the motorcycle and the driver of the Tractor did not possess any valid driving licence at the time of the accident and the claimants must prove their age, occupation, income and nature of injuries sustained by the injured claimant and therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the claim petitions.
2.3. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants, P.W.1 to P.W.4 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.11 were marked. On behalf of the appellant- Insurance Company, R.W.1 to R.W.3 were examined and Exs.R.1 to R.11 were marked. Ex.X1 was also marked.
2.4. On contest, the Tribunal, considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence let in on either side, found that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tractor belonging to the first respondent insured with the appellant-Insurance Company and fastened the liability on the appellant-Insurance Company and awarded a sum of Rs.2,55,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Fifty Five Thousand only) along with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till date of realisation [M.C.O.P.No.169 of 2008]; a sum of Rs.6,26,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs and Twenty Six Thousand only) along with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till date of realisation [M.C.O.P.No.170 of 2008]; a sum of Rs.73,500/- (Rupees Seventy Three Thousand and Five Hundred only) along with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till date of realisation [M.C.O.P.No.184 of 2008].
2.5. Aggrieved over the award of the Tribunal, the appellant-Insurance Company has filed the present appeals.
3. Heard the learned Counsel for all the parties and perused the materials available on record.
4. The owners of the Tractor as well as the driver of the Tractor remained exparte before the Tribunal and hence, notice to them is dispensed with, in view of the Full Bench judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Mrs.Jamunabai v. Chhote Singh reported in I (2004) ACC 190 (FB).
5. The learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that at the time of the accident, the driver of the Tractor did not possess a valid driving licence and that the Tribunal without any valid reasons, rejected the evidence of R.W.2 on the ground that it is only a hear-say evidence. He further submitted that in view of the fact that the driver of the Tractor is not having a valid driving licence, the appellant-Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation.
6. The learned Counsel for the insurer of the Trailer submitted that the accident took place only due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the motorcycle, viz., deceased Balusamy.
7. On the contrary, the learned Counsel for the claimants submitted that the claimants proved the age, income, occupation of the deceased and injured claimant and that the Tribunal rightly held that the driver of the Tractor was rash and negligent at the time of the accident and therefore, he was alone was responsible for the accident and also considering all the materials available on record, granted the just compensation and therefore, the same need not be interfered with.
8. However, the learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that the sixth respondent in C.M.A(MD)No.959 of 2012 alone was the driver of the Tractor at the time of the accident and he did not possess a valid driving licence.
9. From the records, it is seen that before the Tribunal, evidence was let in by the claimants to prove that only the fifth respondent in C.M.A(MD)No.959 of 2012 alone drove the Tractor at the time of the accident and he possessed a valid driving licence. On evidence, the Tribunal has held that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tractor. Though the appellant-Insurance Company examined R.W.2
- Inspector of the appellant-Insurance Company, no other witness was examined to substantiate the evidence of R.W.2. The Tribunal, in the facts and circumstances of the case, has rightly rejected the evidence of R.W.2. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tractor and the Trailer was also attached to the Tractor at the time of the accident. In these circumstances, there is no infirmity or illegality in the finding of the Tribunal directing the appellant-Insurance Company and the insurer of the Trailer to pay the compensation equally and accordingly, the said finding is confirmed.
10. As far as quantum of compensation awarded in all the claim petitions, the Tribunal, considering the age, income and occupation of the deceased as well as nature of the injuries sustained by the injured claimant, awarded the just compensation and they are not excessive.
11. In the result,
(i) C.M.A(MD)Nos.959, 960 and 961 of 2012 are dismissed;
(ii) The claimants in all the claim petitions are directed to submit their Savings Bank Account Details along with the copies of their passbooks to the Tribunal forthwith;
(iii) The respective award amounts are directed to be deposited before the Tribunal to the credit of respective claim petitions 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 amounts deposited to the credit of M.C.O.P.Nos.169 of 2008 and 184 of 2008 directly to the respective Personal Savings Bank Account Numbers of the respective claimants, less the amount already withdrawn by them, if any, through RTGS/NEFT system, after getting their Account Details, within a period of two weeks thereafter;
(iv) Insofar as the respective share of the minor second respondent in C.M.A(MD)No.960 of 2012 is concerned, the Tribunal is directed to deposit the same in Fixed Deposit in any one of the nationalised banks under the renewable scheme till he attains majority and the first respondent/mother of the minor claimant is permitted to withdraw the interest accrued thereon once in three months for the welfare of the minor claimant.
(v) In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, all the connected miscellaneous petition are dismissed.
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - cum ?
District Court, Karur.
2.The Record Keeper, V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai..