SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/1018250 |
Court | Kerala High Court |
Decided On | Jul-08-2013 |
Judge | HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN |
Appellant | United India Insurance Company Limited |
Respondent | Jose and Others |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN MONDAY,THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2013 17TH ASHADHA, 1935 MACA.No. 1943 of 2006 ( ) ------------------------- AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 1414 2002 of SPL.COURT FOR EC ACT CASES & MACT, THRISSUR, DATED 27 02-2006 APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------ UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, THRISSUR, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER REGIONAL OFFICE, "SHARANYA", HOSPITAL ROAD KOCHI-11. BY ADVS.SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONERS: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. T.J.JOSE, THATTIL HOUSE, ELTHURUTH, THRISSUR.
2. THANKAMMA, W/O.T.J.JOSE, DO. DO.
3. JOJU, S/O.JOSE, DO. DO.
4. JOLLY JOSE, DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN BY ADV. SRI.P.V.BALAKRISHNAN THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN & K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ.
================== M.A.C.A.No. 1943 of 2006 ================== Dated this the 8th day of July, 2013 JUDGMENT
K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.: The insurance company in O.P.(M.V).No.1414/2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, is the appellant herein. (Unless otherwise specifically mentioned, the status of the parties are mentioned in the judgment as stated in the award of the Tribunal). The claim petition was filed by the parents and siblings of deceased Joshy, who died in a motor vehicle accident caused on account of the negligent driving of a vehicle owned by the 1st respondent, driven by the 2nd respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the 2nd respondent and awarded a total compensation of ` 2,17,000/- under various heads as follows: Amount Head of claim awarded ` 1 Transportation expenses 500.00 2 Damage to clothing 500.00 3 Funeral expenses 5,000.00 4 Pain and suffering 15,000.00 5 Loss of estate 10,000.00 6 Loss of dependency 176,000.00 7 Loss of love and affection 10,000.00 Total 217,000.00 - :
2. :- According to the insurance company, the autorikshaw was in fact driven by the deceased himself and the owner of the vehicle was his father and the 2nd respondent was not driving the vehicle. The contention of the insurance company was rejected by the Tribunal and dissatisfied with the same and also against the quantum of compensation awarded, the insurance company preferred the above appeal.
2. Heard both sides.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in fact the autorikshaw involved in the accident belongs to the father of the deceased and it was driven by the deceased himself and the 2nd respondent was substituted later in order to claim compensation from the 3rd respondent and the amount awarded under various heads is also excessive. The deceased being a bachelor, the Tribunal ought to have deducted half of the income towards his personal expenses, instead of which, only one-third was deducted. So, the quantum of compensation awarded is also excessive.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that on the basis of the evidence adduced, the Tribunal was perfectly justified in holding that the - :
3. :- accident occurred due to the negligence of the 2nd respondent and the amount awarded is also justifiable.
5. Except the contention taken in the written statement that the deceased was driving the autorikshaw and he himself was responsible for the accident, there is no other evidence adduced on the side of the appellant to prove this fact. On the other hand, the criminal court records produced by the claimants, viz., Exts.A1 to A4, will go to show that the police has registered a case against the 2nd respondent and final report was also filed against the 2nd respondent for rash and negligent driving. In the absence of evidence adduced on the side of the appellant to disprove this fact, the criminal records will have to be taken as prima facie evidence to prove negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent, which resulted in the accident. So, there is no merit in the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the deceased himself and the Tribunal was perfectly justified in holding that the 2nd respondent was responsible for the accident.
6. As regards the compensation awarded is concerned, the Tribunal has taken only ` 2,000/- as the monthly income of - :
4. :- the deceased and it is true that one-third alone was deducted. But, the multiplier taken was that of the parents and not that of the deceased. In the decision reported in Amrit Bhanu Shali and others v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, 2012 ACJ 2002.the Supreme Court has held that age of the deceased has to be taken for selecting multiplier for assessing compensation for loss of dependency. If that principle is applied, the amount awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be excessive. We do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of the court below regarding negligence and also quantum of compensation awarded. The appeal has no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. We do so. Sd/- S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Sd/- sdk+ K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. To Judge. - :
5. :-