Full Judgment
2. The Insurance Company had filed counter statement and resisted the claim petition. This respondent denied the averments in the claim regarding age, income and occupation of the deceased. It was submitted that the claim was excessive. It was submitted that the 1st respondent's vehicle driver did not have a valid driving licence and the vehicle was not covered under a valid policy of insurance at the time of accident. The averments in the claim regarding manner of accident and the alleged negligence on the part of the driver was also denied. The claimants had not furnished the driving licence, vehicle permit and copy of the Insurance policy. The respondent further stated that the claim amount is an excessive one.
3. On considering the averments of both the parties, the Tribunal had framed two issues namely: (1)Was the accident caused due to the negligence driving by the driver of the van bearing registration not TN-33C-3499?; (2)Whether the claimants are entitled to receive compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation?. On the side of the claimants, the 1st claimant was examined as PW.1 and one Ilayaraja, the eyewitness of accident was examined as PW.2 and the following documents were marked namely: F.I.R, charge sheet, post mortem report and copy of judgment of Criminal Court. On the side of the respondent, two witnesses were examined as Rws.1 and 2 and two documents were marked namely, record of driving licence particulars and insurance policy.
4. PW.1, had adduced evidence that her husband was travelling as a cleaner in the 1st respondents van bearing registration not TN-33C-3499, on 02.07.2004, at about 07.00 a.m. The said van had been driven by one Mohanraj. The van was proceeding from Ayakudi to Tirupur with a load of fruits and while so, when it was near Kancheepuram Division, the tyre of the vehicle burst and the vehicle capsized. PW.1, further stated that in the said accident, her husband had expired at Government Hospital, Coimbatore and the other passengers, who had travelled along with their fruits were also injured. PW.1, further stated that her husband was aged about 35 years and he was earning Rs.3,000/- per month and that the 2nd claimant is her minor daughter and the 3rd claimant is the mother of the deceased. The deceased's age was 35 years at the time of accident. PW.2, one Ilayaraja who was the eyewitness, spoke on the same lines of PW.1, regarding accident.
5. RW.1, Junior Assistant, attached to the Regional Transport Office, deposed that the driver Mohanraj was possessing a valid driving licence which was valid from 29.03.2001 to 28.03.2004. Subsequently, it was renewed from 05.07.2004 to 04.07.2007. but on the date of accident, i.e., 02.07.2004, the driver was not having a valid driving licence. RW.2, a Senior Assistant attached to the Insurance Company had adduced evidence that the deceased Pandi and more than ten others had travelled as gratuitous passengers and as such they have violated the vehicle permit conditions.
6. On considering the evidence of both parties and on perusing the exhibits marked by them, the Tribunal had granted a sum of Rs.4,28,000/- as compensation to the claimants. The compensation amount was granted under the heads of loss of income, loss of love and affection, transport and funeral expenses. The Tribunal had further directed the Insurance Company to pay the said sum along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.
7. Against the said award, the Insurance Company has filed the above appeal. The highly competent counsel submits that the claimant had claimed Rs.3,00,000/- but the Tribunal had awarded excess compensation of Rs.4,28,000/-. As per permit condition of the vehicle, more than ten persons were not allowed to travel but in this case, the deceased and more than ten persons had travelled and as such the policy conditions have been violated and hence the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay compensation. The learned counsel further submits that the driver of the vehicle was not possessing a valid driving licence on the date of accident i.e., 02.07.2004 and the same was produced by way of adducing oral and documentary evidence by the RTO officials. The learned counsel further submits that the deceased was travelling in the body of the vehicle and not in the cabin, as a cleaner and as such he is an unauthorized passenger. Hence, the highly competent counsel entreats the Court to set aside the impugned award.
8. The learned counsel for the claimant contended that the driver of the vehicle was possessing a valid driving licence and that he is a fit person to travel in the said vehicle and hence his licence was renewed on 05.07.2004. but, the accident took place on 02.07.2004. From this, it is evident that the driver of the vehicle was a fit person to operate the vehicle on 02.07.2004 also. The highly competent counsel further submits that the driver of the vehicle had a valid licence effective from 29.03.2001 and as such it is evident that the driver had enough experience to operate the vehicle on the public road on the date of accident. The learned counsel further submits that the deceased's age was 35 years and he was a cleaner in the said van and earning Rs.3,500/- per month. On the basis of the income of the deceased and his avocation, the compensation amount has been assessed even though the claimed compensation is Rs.3,00,000/- and the grant of compensation is purely rests on the discretion of the Tribunal and as such the impugned order is sustainable under law. The learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal had not granted compensation under the heads of loss of love and affection and funeral expenses. Further, the Tribunal had not granted compensation under the head of loss of consortium and therefore the highly competent counsel prays, this Court to dismiss the appeal.
9. From the above discussions, this Court is of the view that: (1) The driver of the van had received driving licence with effect from 29.01.2003 to 28.03.2004 and subsequently the driving licence was renewed from 05.07.2004 to 04.07.2007, but the accident took place on 02.07.2004 and on that day the driving licence was not in force. But, it was renewed within three days. As such, it is evident that the driver of the van had not been disqualified for operating the vehicle; (2) The tyre of Insurance policy and conditions framed is insurance policy is a separate contract between the Insurance Company and owner of the vehicle and it is evident that the deceased, being a third party, would not be aware of the conditions framed in the policy of insurance; (3) As per F.I.R, the Inspector of Police had recorded the statements, which is narrated in the F.I.R and it has been stated that the offending vehicle was carrying a load of fruits and that the owner of the fruits had travelled in the van. The statement was given by one Melan Gurusamy, before the Inspector of Police and as such a state agency has recorded the above observations after thorough investigations, it can only be considered as true.
10. On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and on perusing the impugned award of the Tribunal and on the observations made by this Court listed as 1 to 3, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the conclusions arrived at regarding liability and quantum of compensation. This Court further views that as per the F.I.R, the owners of the fruits had travelled along with their goods in the van. The deceased Pandidurai was a cleaner and the same had not been challenged by the owner of the vehicle or driver of vehicle. Besides, the deceased's age was fixed at 35 years as per the post mortem certificate and his notional income taken as Rs.3,000/- per month is also reasonable. On the basis of the above aspects, the compensation had been assessed appropriately. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the award passed by the Tribunal.
11. As per Court records, it is seen that this Court imposed a condition on the appellant to deposit 50% of the award amount with proportionate interest. Now, this Court directs the appellant to pay the balance compensation, with accrued interest thereon, as per Tribunal order, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
12. After such a deposit has been made, it is open to the 1st and 3rd claimants to withdraw their apportioned share amount with accrued interest thereon lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.158 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Palani, after filing a memo, along with a copy of this order. This Court directs the learned Tribunal to deposit the 2nd minor claimant's share amount, with accrued interest thereon, in her name, in a nationalized bank, as fixed deposit in the cumulative deposit scheme, till she attains the age of a major and hand over the fixed deposit certificate to the 1st claimant, i.e., the mother of the minor.
13. In the result, the above appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the award and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.158 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Palani, dated 19.04.2010, is confirmed. No costs. ub To 1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Palani. 2.The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.