This is an appeal by an insurance company against a MACT award of Rs.2,55,000 for death caused by a negligent auto-rickshaw driver. The High Court found no discrepancy in the Tribunal's conclusions regarding negligence, liability, and compensation quantum.
The appeal was dismissed and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award of Rs.2,55,000 was confirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.07.2013
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN
C.M.A. No.94 of 2007
The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., No.13-A, Nethaji Road, Cuddalore.
... Appellant/ 2nd Respondent
vs.
1.Arumugam
...Respondents 1 & 2/ Petitioners 1 & 2
2.Mohanraj ...Respondents 1 & 2/ Petitioners 1 & 2 3.Dinesh ...3rd Respondent/ I Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree in M.C.O.P.No.1500 of 2004, dated 21.07.2006, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional Sub Judge, Cuddalore.
For Appellant : Mr.M.B.Gopalan
For Respondents: Ms. Shakkira Banu
JUDGMENT
On 07.03.2004, at about 9.15 p.m., when the deceased Raja and others were travelling in an Auto-rickshaw bearing Registration No.TN-31-D-5630, on the Panrutti Main Road, the driver of the Auto had driven it in a negligent manner and at high speed and dashed it against a tree. As a result, the deceased had succumbed to his injuries. Hence, the father and brother of the deceased have filed the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.1500 of 2004 against the owner and insurer of the said Auto.
2.The Insurance Company had filed counter statement and resisted the claim petition. The respondent denied the averments in the claim that the accident had been caused by the rash driving of the driver of the Auto. The deceased was aged only 17 years and as such he is not involved in doing any work. Therefore, the averments in the claim regarding income of deceased was not admitted.
3.In the said accident, other 5 claim petitions have been filed by the other claimants. On the request made by the counsel for their respective claimants through joint memo, joint trial was conducted and common evidence was recorded. The Tribunal had framed two issues for consideration namely (1) Due to whose negligence was the accident caused? and (2) Whether the claimants are entitled to receive compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation?
4.The 1st claimant was examined as PW1 and marked documents namely F.I.R., Motor Vehicle Inspector's report, Death certificate, Postmortem report, Insurance Policy. PW1 had adduced evidence that on 07.03.2004, at about 9.15 p.m., when his son Raja and others were travelling in an Auto-rickshaw bearing Registration No.TN-31D-5630, on the Panrutti Main road, the driver of the Auto drove it in a negligent manner and dashed it against a tree. As a result, his son had succumbed to his injuries. PW1 further stated that his son was aged about 17 years and he was employed in a Cashewnut company and was earning Rs.2,250/- per month. The 2nd claimant is the brother of the deceased.
5.RW1, had adduced evidence that on 07.03.2004, about 8 persons had travelled in the said Auto. He deposed that the driver of the Auto did not have a valid driving licence.
6.On considering the evidence of the witnesses, the trial Court had granted a sum of Rs.2,55,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved by the said award, the Insurance Company has filed the above appeal. The highly competent counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the driver of the Auto did not possess a valid driving licence and the seating capacity in the Auto was provided only for 3 persons and that at the time of accident, 8 persons had travelled in it.
7.The learned counsel for the claimants submits that the deceased was earning Rs.2,250/-, but the trial Court had not granted adequate compensation under the relevant heads namely loss of earning, loss of love and affection, funeral expenses and transport.
8.On verifying the factual position of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and on perusing the impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the conclusions arrived at regarding negligence, liability and quantum of compensation. All the issues have been decided in an appropriate manner. Hence, the award is confirmed. Pay and recovery does not arise in this case since the R.T.O. official was not examined to prove that the driver of the Auto did not have a driving licence.
9.Now, the claimants are permitted to withdraw their apportioned share amount, with accrued interest thereon, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.1500 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional Sub Judge, Cuddalore, after filing a memo, along with a copy of this order.
10.In the result, the above appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the award and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.1500 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, dated 21.07.2006, is confirmed . No costs.
Sd/-
Asst.Registrar
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
vs
To
1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional Sub Judge, Cuddalore.
2.The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.
1 cc to Mr.M.B. Gopalan, Advocate, Sr. 33579 1 cc to Mr.R.Sreedhar, Advocate, Sr. 33211
C.M.A.No.94 of 2007
MG (CO) kk 21/1
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal correctly assessed negligence, liability and quantum of compensation.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the award despite allegations of driver licence violations.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
1.Arumugam
2.Mohanraj
3.Dinesh
C.S.Karnan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
