THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A. No.761 of 2019
JUDGMENT:
Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited-respondent No.3 before the Tribunal, preferred this appeal challenging the order and decree, dated 30.11.2018, passed in O.P. No. 515 of 2015 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad, on the ground that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and exorbitant.
2. For the sake convenience, the parties, hereinafter, will be referred to as per their array before the Tribunal.
3. According to the pleadings in the O.P. filed by the claimant, on 5.7.2015 the deceased Sable Kartar Singh along with his cousin was proceeding to Gopalpet Tanda from Saingar on his Hero splendor motorcycle and when they reached petrol pump of Ankapur village state highway No.63 at about 3-00 p.m., one John Deere Tractor bearing No. TR.TS.01.CTR.2495 being driven by its driver came in rash and negligent manner with high speed from opposite direction and dashed their motorcycle, due to which both of them fell down and received 2 grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident, the deceased Sable Kartar Singh was shifted to Government Hospital, Nizamabad, but while undergoing treatment he succumbed to the injuries. Thus, the petitioners are claiming compensation of Rs.19,00,000/- under various heads.
4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are driver and owner of the offending tractor remained exparte; Respondent No.3 filed counter denying the manner of accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased.
5. On the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
1. Whether the accident dated 05.07.2015 was due to the rash and negligent driving of Tractor bearing TR No.TS.01.CTR.2495 and the said accident resulted in the death of deceased Sable Kartar Singh or whether there was any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
3. To what relief?
6. In order to prove the issues, on behalf of the petitioners, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A8 got marked. On behalf of respondents, none were examined and no document marked.
3
7. On evaluation of the evidence, both oral and documentary, the Tribunal allowed the O.P. in part and awarded total compensation of Rs.9,23,500/- with 9% interest per annum, holding the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
8. Heard both sides and perused the material available on record.
9. The learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal ought to have appreciated that the alleged accident was occurred due to negligent driving of the deceased. It is further contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal including rate of interest is excessive.
10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 5/petitioners sought to sustain the impugned award of the Tribunal contending that considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation and the same needs no interference by this Court.
4
11. With regard to the manner of accident, petitioner No.1 was examined as PW-1 and she reiterated the contents of the petition. Further on behalf of the petitioners, PW-2 who was also going along with the deceased on his motorcycle as pillion rider was examined as eyewitness to the accident and he categorically deposed that on 05.07.2015 while he along with the deceased was going on the motorcycle at about 3-00 p.m., near petrol pump of Ankapur of Nizamabad district, a tractor bearing No. TS.01.CTR.2495 being driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner with high speed came in wrong side in their opposite direction and dashed their motorcycle, due to which both of them fell down, and the deceased died while undergoing treatment. Therefore, considering the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 coupled with the documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal rightly held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tractor. Further there is no rebuttal evidence produced by the respondents. Hence, there is no need to interfere with the finding given by the Tribunal on this aspect.
12. Now coming to the quantum of compensation, according to the evidence of PW-1, the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month through agriculture and he was also having 5 agricultural land of Ac.3-00 guntas in Sy.Nos.612/2 and 612/3 vide patta No.564 issued by Tahsildar of Sarangapur, but they failed to adduce any evidence to prove the same. Hence the Tribunal rightly taken the notional income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month under minimum wages act, and added 50% of his income towards future prospects, deducted 1/4th of his income towards personal expenses and by applying multiplier '17' awarded compensation of Rs.6,88,500/- towards loss of dependency. Further the Tribunal also awarded Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner No.1 towards consortium, Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection to petitioner No.5, Rs.5,000/- towards transport charges, Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral and obsequies. Thus, in all the tribunal awarded Rs.9,23,500/- under all counts, which is just and reasonable. Hence, there is no need to interfere with the compensation awarded by the tribunal.
13. Coming to the aspect of interest, considering the prevailing rate of interest, the interest awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. Therefore, the rate of interest is reduced from 9% to 7.5% per annum.
6
14. With regard to the aspect of liability of payment of compensation, as stated above, the alleged accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tractor. Further the petitioners filed Ex.A6 copy of insurance policy, which was in force as on the date of accident and the respondent No.3-Insurance Company failed to produce any rebuttal evidence to disprove the same. Considering the said evidence, the tribunal rightly held that the respondent Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation awarded to the petitioners.
15. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent of modifying the rate of interest from 9% to 7.5% per annum. In all other aspects, the order of the Tribunal stands confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI 21-10-2022 pgp