The above appeal has been preferred by the appellants/claimants against the judgment and decree passed in MCOP.NO.10 of 1996, dated 24.7.2001 in favour of the respondents awarding a total compensation of Rs.2,22,000/= together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition, till date of deposit of compensation amount.
2. The appellants/Claimants have filed the Claim Petition in MCOP.No: 10 of 1996, claiming a total compensation of Rs.10,04,250/= and restricted the same to a sum of RS.7,50,000/- only.
3. The facts of the case is as follows:
The claimants are the parents of the deceased, one Suresh Prabhakar, who died in a motor vehicle accident. The deceased worked as a Supervisor in Arasu Autos at Thanjavur at the time of accident. On 18.6.1994 at 10.15 a.m., the deceased Suresh Prabhakar drove the motor cycle bearing registration No. TN-51- 4449. At about, 10.30 a.m., while he was coming from west to east in the motorcycle in Tiruchy road, the mini van bearing registration No. TAY 2774 came with high speed and the left side of the van hit the motorcycle and dragged the deceased to some extent, as a result of which, the said Suresh Prabhakar sustained injuries and died on the spot. The same was witnessed by a co- employee, one Srinivasan, who preferred a complaint to the Thanjavur Town Police. The same was registered in Crime No.123/94 for an alleged offence under
Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code.
4. The claimants further submitted that they depend upon their deceased son's income for their livelihood. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged 26 years and he contributed his entire salary to the petitioners. The accident happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 1st respondent, who is the owner of the vehicle and the same was insured with the 2nd respondent/insurance company. Hence, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants.
5. The 2nd respondent/insurance company had filed the counter statement and resisted the claim. The insurance company submitted that the driver did not have a valid licence to drive the vehicle. Further, the accident did not happen due to the negligence of the van driver and it was only due to the carelessness and negligence on the part of the deceased. The allegation against the mini van driver is totally denied. The claim of compensation is also on the higher side. Further, the deceased, while crossing the road, on seeing the mini van lost his control over the vehicle and dashed against the rear portion of the van. As such, the respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. Further there is no proof of income for the deceased. Further, the insurance company/2nd respondent had stated that the claim amount has been claimed by the claimant without any basis. Further, the owner of the motorcycle was not ordered to be impleaded as party in this case, and so the non-joinder of the necessary party in the Claim Petition makes it not maintainable.
6. On the side of the appellants/claimants, three witnesses were examined as P.W.s 1 to 3 and 17 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P17 before the learned Tribunal. On the respondents side, no documents were marked and no evidence was tendered.
7. On an oral and documentary evidence of the petitioner and perusal of the counter statements of the respondents, the learned Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,22,000/= along with 9% interest from the date of petition till date of payment of compensation. The learned Tribunal framed two issues for consideration, namely (i) whether the driver of the 1st respondent's vehicle was responsible for the accident? (ii) whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation; and if so, what will be the quantum of compensation?
8. In order to prove the negligence and quantum of compensation, the 1st appellant/claimant has examined himself as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and P.W.3 were also examined. P.W.1, the father of the deceased stated that the deceased was his son and he had got a Diploma in Mechanical Engineering. After finishing his course, he was working as a Manager in a Private Auto service centre at Thanjavur. At the time of accident, he was 26 years age and he was earning a salary of Rs.2,100/= per month. Further, the 1st claimant marked 17 documents in support of his case, namely, i) FIR (ii)Motor Vehicle Inspector's report (iii) Postmortem Certificate (iv) Judgement copy rendered in the criminal case (v) educational certificates of the deceased (vi) driving licence certificate (vii) Pay Acquittance of the employer company etc., P.W.2 tendered evidence stating that he is well known to the deceased and that he also worked along with him and he followed the deceased vehicle in another vehicle. At that time, he had witnessed the accident and he had given the complaint to the concerned police station for further action. P.W.3, one Sekar also tendered evidence before the Tribunal and he confirmed that the deceased had worked in Arasu Auto as a Manager. Further, the salary of the deceased was Rs.1750/= in the month of June. In the month of May, the deceased had drawn Rs.1250/=. The Criminal Court proceedings disclosed that the 1st respondent's driver was prosecuted on an alleged offence under
Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. The evidence of P.Ws 1 to 3 are clear, cogent and convincing in regard to the manner and happening of the accident.
9. The learned Tribunal has come to a conclusion that the accident happened due to the negligence of the 1st respondent's driver and also has come to a conclusion that the income of the deceased was Rs.1,250/= per month and his age was 26 years at the time of accident. Taking these into consideration, the learned Tribunal awarded the compensation under the headings as below:-
i) Loss of earning Rs.1,80,000/-
ii) For love and affection Rs. 20,000/-
In total, a sum of Rs.2,22,000/= was awarded by the Tribunal as compensation with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing of the petition to the date of payment. Advocate and Court Fee of Rs.9000/- was granted by the Tribunal.
10. Considering the above judgment and decree and oral evidence and documentary evidence of claimants, and also taking into account that the deceased was the only son of the claimants, the Award amount is to be modified in the following manner:-
i) Loss of earning Rs.1,80,000/-(as it is)
ii) For love and affection Rs. 50,000/- for each claimants
iii) For mental agony Rs. 50,000/- for each claimants
iv) For funeral expenses Rs. 10,000/-
v) Hospital expenses and transport expenses to take the dead body to native place Rs.5,000/-
11. In total, a sum of Rs.3,95,000/- is awarded (Rupees three lakhs ninety five thousand only). The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced compensation amount for a sum of Rs.1,73,000/- with accrued interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation amount, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order in the credit of MCOP.No.10 of 1996 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Thanjavur.
12. It is open to the appellants/claimants to receive the balance amount lying to the credit of MCOP.No.10 of 1996 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District Judge) Thanjavur, by filing necessary payment out application in accordance with law. Resultantly, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in the above terms and consequently, the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District Judge) Thanjavur in MCOP.No:10 of 1996 is modified. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. The parties are directed to bear their own cost in this appeal.
JIKR Copy to:
1) The Principal Subordinate Judge, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal) Thanjavur