C.S. Karnan, J.@mdashThe above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the Appellant/Respondent against the Award and Decree, dated 10.01.2005, made in M.C.O.P. No. 1147 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional Sub-Court, Cuddalore, awarding a compensation of Rs. 3,50,064/- together with 9% interest per annum, from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation.
2. Aggrieved by the said Award and Decree, the Appellant/Respondent has filed the above appeal praying to set aside the award and decree passed by the Tribunal.
3. The short facts of the case are as follows:
On 13.11.2000, at about 19.50 hours, the deceased Pari was proceeding on his bicycle on Cuddalore to Pondy main road. While he was nearing 5 Star Wines at Mullodai, the Jeep bearing registration No. TN49 G0193, belonging to the Respondent, came in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and hit against the cyclist. In the result, he sustained head injury and died on the spot itself. The postmortem was done by the Medical Authority, Government Hospital, Pondicherry. The deceased Pari was hale and healthy at the time of the accident and earned not less than Rs. 5,000/- per month as a Security and as a Milk Vendor. The first Petitioner is the wife of the deceased and the second Petitioner is the minor son of the deceased. The said accident had happened only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Respondent''s vehicle. Therefore, the Respondent is liable to pay compensation to the Petitioners. As such, the Petitioners claimed a compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/- before the Tribunal.
4. The Respondent/the Superintendent of Police, in their Counter, had resisted the claim petition, which reads as follows:
This Respondent denies the age, income and occupation of the deceased. The Petitioners are put to strict proof of the same by filing necessary documents.
This Respondent submit that while the Respondent vehicle driver drove the vehicle at a moderate speed by observing all traffic rules and regulations the deceased was drove his bicycle and suddenly crossed the road without minding on coming vehicle and invited the accident. This accident occurred only due to the negligent act of the deceased. Hence, this Respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the Petitioner.
This Respondent submits that the Petitioners are not the legal heirs of the deceased. The Petitioners are not strict proof of the same by filing necessary documents.
This Respondent further submits that the claimant may be directed to confirm that no other petition has been filed arising out of the same accident either before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal or before any other MACT Court within the country.
In any event, the quantum of compensation is most exorbitant, highly excessive and without any basis.
Accordingly, the Respondent prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
5. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had framed three issues for the consideration namely:
(i) At whose negligence the accident had occurred?
(ii) Whether the Petitioners are entitled to get compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation?
6. On the Petitioners'' side, the first Petitioner was examined as PW1, one Ranganathan, eye witness of the accident, was examined as PW2 and six documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P6 namely Ex.P1-Xerox copy of the First Information Report, Ex.P2-Xerox copy of the Motor Vehicle Inspector''s Report, Ex.P3-Xerox copy of the Postmortem Report, Ex.P4-Registration Certificate of the Jeep, Ex.P5-Salary Certificate of the deceased Pari and Ex.P6-Xerox copy of the Charge Sheet. On the Respondents'' side no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked.
7. PW1, the first claimant, had adduced evidence stating that on 13.11.2000, at about 19.50 hours, her husband Pari was proceeding on his bicycle on Cuddalore to Pondy main road. While he was nearing 5 Star Wines at Mullodai, the Jeep bearing registration No. TN49 G0193, belonging to the Respondent, came in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and hit against the cyclist. In the result, he sustained head injury and died on the spot itself. In order to prove her claim, she has marked Ex.P1-First Information Report, Ex.P2-Motor Vehicle Inspector''s Report and Ex.P6-Charge Sheet. Further, she had adduced evidence stating that at the time of the accident her husband was aged 39 years and he was earning not less than Rs. 5,000/- per month working as a Security. In order to prove his income, she has also marked Ex.P5-Salary Certificate.
8. PW2, one Ranganathan, eye witness of the accident had adduced evidence stating that on 13.11.2000 at about 08.00 p.m. while he was in his home, the deceased Pari died on the spot itself due to the dashing of the Jeep. Further, he had adduced evidence stating that the accident had happened only due to the rash and negligent driving of driver the accident had happened.
9. After considering the evidence of the PW1 and PW2 and the documents, which were marked as exhibits, the learned Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Respondent''s vehicle, therefore the Respondent is liable to pay compensation to the Petitioner and awarded the compensation as follows:
i. Rs. 3,20,064/- under the head of loss of income, after adopting multiplier method (Rs. 1,667/- � 12 � 16),
ii. Rs. 15,000/- under the head of loss of consortium, to the first claimant,
iii. Rs. 10,000/- under the head of loss of love and affection, to the second claimant,
iv. Rs. 5,000/- under the head of funeral expenses,
In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 3,50,064/- as compensation to the Petitioner, together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation. Further, the Tribunal directed the Respondent to deposit the compensation amount of Rs. 3,50,064/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation, within a period of one month from the date of its Order. Further, the Tribunal apportioned a sum of Rs. 1,50,064 to the first claimant and a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the second claimant. In turn, the first claimant''s share to be deposited, under a fixed deposit scheme, in any one of a nationalised bank, for a period three years and the second claimant''s share to be deposited, under a fixed deposit, in any one a nationalised bank, till he attains adulthood. Further, the Tribunal permitted the first claimant to withdraw the interest, from her share and also from the minor''s share, once in six months Accordingly ordered.
10. Aggrieved by the said Award and Decree, the Appellant/Respondent has filed the above appeal praying to set aside the award and decree passed by the Tribunal.
11. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant vehemently argued that the rate of interest ie.9% per annum is erroneous, in the relevant period the rate of interest is only 7.5%. Further, the learned Counsel specifically argued that the Tribunal awarded a compensation under the head of loss of income, after adopting multiplier method. But, there is no proper documentary proof for the deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 5,000/-. Further, the learned Counsel argued that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 5,000/- is on exorbitant, since he was working as a Security. As such, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side. Therefore, the learned Counsel prays before this Court to scale down the compensation amount passed by the Tribunal.
12. The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents/claimants argued that the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is fair and equitable, since his age was 39 years and his earning was Rs. 5,000/-. In order to prove the deceased''s age and income, she has marked Ex.P5-Post-mortem Report and Ex.P6-Salary Certificate. Further, the learned Counsel argued that the Tribunal after considering the evidence of both sides and exhibits, awarded the compensation. As such, there is no discrepancy in the said award and decree. Therefore, the learned Counsel prays before this Court to dismiss the appeal filed by the Appellant.
13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel appearing on either side and the award and decree passed by the Tribunal, this Court is of the view that on considering the age and income of the deceased, the Tribunal adopted proper multiplier. As such, there is no discrepancy in the award and decree and this Court is unwilling to interfere with the compensation, which was awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, this Court concurs with the findings of the Tribunal.
14. On 11.12.2007, this Court imposed a condition on the Appellant to deposit the entire compensation amount with accrued interest thereon, into the credit of the M.C.O.P. No. 1147 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional Sub-Court, Cuddalore.
15. As the accident had happened in the year 2000, it is open to the Respondents/claimants to withdraw the entire compensation amount, awarded by the Tribunal, with accrued interest thereon and costs, lying in the credit of the M.C.O.P. No. 1147 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional Sub-Court, Cuddalore, by making proper payment out application, subject to the deduction of earlier withdrawals, if any, in accordance with law.
16. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the Award and Decree, dated 10.01.2005, made in M.C.O.P. No. 1147 of 2002, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional Sub-Court, Cuddalore is confirmed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.
