United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mr. B. Krishnamoorthy, - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- what remains to be seen is as to whether pinki died an un-natural death within seven years of her marriage and whether her death was attributable to the demand of dowry and further whether she was dealt with cruelty soon before her death. if these ingredients are proved by the prosecution then the conviction of the accused under section 304b, ipc will be complete.[para 9] the question is, in the absence of corpus delicti, could it be presumed that the accused persons alone were responsible for the death of pinki. we must hasten to add here that the accused persons have already been acquitted of the murder charge. [para 9] it is clear that pinki's death was caused because of the burns and not in the normal circumstances. the finding of the trial court and the appellate court in that behalf is correct. for this reason we are not impressed by the argument of the learned counsel that in the absence of corpus delicti, the conviction could not stand. [para10] it is clear that the prosecution has not only proved the offence under section 304b, ipc with the aid of section 113b, indian evidence act but also the offence under section 201, ipc. [para 15] held: we have gone through the judgments of the trial court as well as the appellate court carefully and we find that both the courts have fully considered all the aspects of this matter. we, therefore, find nothing wrong with the judgments and confirm the same. the appeal is, therefore, dismissed.[para 16]c.s. karnan, j.1. the above civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the appellant/third respondent against the award and decree dated 10.10.2005, made in m.c.o.p. no. 739 of 2004, on the file of the motor accident claims tribunal (iii additional sub court), coimbatore, awarding a compensation amount of rs. 5,19,218/- with 7.5% interest per annum, from the date of filing petition till the date of payment of compensation.2. aggrieved by the said award and decree, passed by the motor accident claims tribunal, (iii additional sub court), coimbatore. in m.c.o.p. no. 739 of 2004, the appellant/united india insurance corporation limited, salem has filed this appeal praying to set aside the award and decree passed by the tribunal.3. the short facts of the case are as follows:on 03.12.2002, at about 12.50 p.m., the petitioner was riding tvs 50 motor cycle bearing registration no. tn-38-7683 slowly, observing all traffic rules, on the avinashi road. when nearing the petrol bunk, and hope college, a lorry bearing registration no. tcf-5679 coming from behind, from west to east direction at a hectic speed and uncontrollably dashed against the motor cycle, resulting in the petitioner sustaining grievous injuries. immediately after the said accident, he was rushed to the p.s.g. hospital at coimbatore for treatment and at christian medical college, vellore, wherein he had taken treatment for over 60 days as in-patient and had undergone operation for treatment. the petitioner further submitted that at the time of the said accident he was a business man dealing in the business of commission agency in the area of yarn and old textile machines. he was also manufacturing yarn under conversion agreement. as such he was earning a sum of rs. 10,000/- per month, at the time of the said accident he was aged about 36 years old. the petitioner further submitted that in the said accident a criminal case was registered by t.i.w (east), police station, crime no. 311 of 2002, under sections 279 and 337 of i.p.c. as against the driver of the lorry. the petitioner further submitted that the accident had happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver. the said lorry was insured with the second respondent insurance company. as such the owner of the lorry and insurance company are jointly and severely liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimant. the petitioner claimed a sum of rs. 17,00,000/- as compensation with accrued interest against the respondents.4. the third respondent has filed a counter statement and resisted the claim petition, stating that the respondent does not admit the alleged cause and course of the accident. the petitioner has suppressed the real fact and filed this petition inventing an imaginary cause and course with a view to substantiate the claim. the third respondent further submitted in the counter statement that the first respondent was driving the vehicle by observing all traffic rules and regulations. the vehicle was stopped by the driver to get the signal near hope college in front of the petrol bunk. at that time the petitioner came rashly and negligently at high speed, on his tvs 50 vehicle at the left side of the stationary vehicle and dashed against the lorry, as such the accident had happened. due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, the accident had happened. further the respondent submitted that the claimant's age, income, and occupation are also denied. the third respondent further submitted that as the owner of the vehicle is set ex-parte, the third respondent is entitled to take all the defences available to him under section 170 of motor vehicles act, for which a separate petition is filed. the respondent further stated that the claim amount is excessive. the third respondent further submitted that the claim petition is an imaginary one. further, there was no such accident which happened as alleged by the petitioner. in the said accident, the petitioner has sustained only simple injuries. the third respondent further submitted that the claim petition is not maintainable against the respondent. hence, the third respondent prays to dismiss the claim petition.5. the motor accident claims tribunal framed three issues for the consideration namely:(i) was the accident committed by the first respondent due to the rash and negligent driving?(ii) whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation? if, so what is the quantum of compensation?(iii) whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation as he prayed for?6. on the side of the petitioner three witnesses were examined as pw1 to pw3 namely; pw1-p. krishnamoorthy; pw2-raguraman; and pw3-dr. ramamoorthy; and 35 documents were marked as ex.p1 to ex.p35 namely; ex.p1-first information report; ex.p2-motor vehicles inspector's report; ex.p3-wound certificate; ex.p4- rough sketch; ex.p5-charge sheet; ex.p6-judgment copy; ex.p7-medical report; ex.p8-p12 medical report; ex.p13-cmc hospital medical report; ex.p14-medical bill series; ex.p15-transport expense bills; ex.p16-miscellaneous expenses bills; ex.p17-photos and negatives; ex.p18-pangajam textile corporation certificate; ex.p19-registration certificate; ex.p20-vouchers; ex.p21-remarks of the doctor's; ex.p22-medical bills series; ex.p23-marriage invitation; ex.p24-reception certificate; ex.p25-medical certificate; ex.p26-scan; ex.p27-scan report; ex.p28-birth certificate; ex.p29-driving licence; ex.p30-x-ray; ex.p31-disability certificate; ex.p32-medical report; ex.p33-medical report; ex.p34-doctor's certificate; and ex.p35-certificate issued by all india medical counsel to the doctor pw3. on the side of the respondents no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked.7. the petitioner was examined as pw1. in his evidence he had adduced evidence stating that on 03.12.2002 at about 12.50p.m, when he was riding the tvs-50 motor cycle bearing registration no. tn-38-7683 slowly and keeping to the extreme left side of the road on the west avinashi road, near the petrol bunk, hope college all of a sudden the lorry tcf-5679 came at high speed and tried to over take the petitioner's motor cycle. at that time the said lorry dashed against the motor cycle on the rear left side of the vehicle, and as such the accident had happened. the petitioner has marked ex.p4- rough sketch; ex.p5-charge sheet; ex.p6-judgment copy. the learned motor accident claims tribunal on considering evidence of pw1 and after scrutiny of ex.p1 to p6 has come to the conclusion that the accident had happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. as such the tribunal held that the owner of the lorry and its insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the claimants.8. further the pw1 had adduced evidence stating that after the accident he has sustained severe mauling of his urinary tract, genital organs, and urinary system, with deep tear, multiple pelvic fracture and severance of his right thumb besides other serious flood injuries, spinal cord fracture and various lacerations. after the said accident he is unable to have sexual relationship. the pw2 had adduced evidence stating that the claimant was doing business, dealing in the agency of yarn textile scrap and manufacture of yarn, on a commission basis. as such the claimant was earning between rs. 8,000/- to rs. 10,000/- per month.9. the pw3 dr. ramamoorthy had adduced evidence stating that he examined the petitioner and after taking x-ray, he assessed disability, sustained by the claimant in the said accident as 55%. the disability certificate was marked as ex.p34. the petitioner further, had adduced evidence stating that initially he was admitted in the government hospital, coimbatore. the petitioner further adduced evidence stating that he had undergone surgical operation five times and he was admitted in psg, hospital, chennai, as in patient. the pw2 marked ex.p8 to ex.p12 medical report, further he marked ex.p13and ex.p14-medical bills; ex.p15- transport expenses.10. considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal awarded a sum of rs. 1,90,506/- under the head of medical expenses, rs. 3,712/- under the head of transport expenses, rs. 50,000/- under the head of pain and suffering, rs. 55,000/- under the head of permanent disability, again rs. 35,000/- for permanent disability, rs. 1,00,000/- for marital loss, rs. 30,000/- under the head of loss of income during the medical period, rs. 5,000/- under the head of nutrition and rs. 50,000/- under the head of mental shock. in total, the tribunal awarded a sum of rs. 5,19,218/- as compensation to the petitioner. but, the tribunal had wrongly mentioned that the award of rs. 4,80,506/-.11. aggrieved by the said award and decree passed by the motor accident claims tribunal, the appellant/united india insurance company limited, has filed the above appeal praying to scale down the quantum of compensation.12. learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the medical bills after verification was a sum of rs. 1,63,492/-. further, the learned counsel submitted that the award of rs. 50,000/- granted under the head of pain and suffering was on the higher side. the learned counsel further vehemently argued that a sum of rs. 30,000/- for loss of income, which was also granted by the motor accident claims tribunal, was without any basic records. it was also argued that the tribunal awarded a sum of rs. 50,000/- towards mental agony, and that this head is not pertinent in the instant case.13. considering the facts and circumstances of the case, on scrutiny of findings of the tribunal and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, this court is of the view that the quantum of compensation is on the higher side. hence, this court decides to scale down the compensation amount as follows:1. under the head of medical expenses, the tribunal awarded a sum of rs. 1,90,506/-. this court reduces the same to rs. 1,63,492/- under the same head,2. under the head of transport expenses, the tribunal awarded a sum of rs. 3,712/-. this court enhances the same to rs. 5,000/- under the same head,3. under the head of pain and suffering, the tribunal awarded a sum of rs. 50,000/-. this court reduces the same to rs. 30,000/-,4. under the head of permanent disability of 55%, the tribunal awarded a sum of rs. 55,000/-. this court enhances the same to rs. 1,10,000/-,5. under the head of permanent disability, the tribunal once again awarded a sum of rs. 35,000/-. this court sets aside the same, since already award granted,6. under the head of marital loss, the tribunal awarded a sum of rs. 1,00,000/-. this court confirms the same under the same head,7. under the head of loss of income, during the medical treatment, the tribunal awarded a sum of rs. 30,000/-. this court confirms the same under the same head,8. under the head of nutrition, the tribunal awarded a sum of rs. 5,000/-. this court confirms the same under the same head,in total, this court awards a sum of rs. 4,43,492/- as compensation to the petitioner together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation, into the credit of the m.c.o.p. no. 739 of 2004, on the file of the motor accident claims tribunal, iii additional sub court, coimbatore. as observed the above, this court has scaled down the compensation from rs. 5,19,218/- to rs. 3,93,492/-, as it is found to be fair and equitable.14. on 09.03.2002, this court imposed a condition on the appellant to deposit a part of the compensation amount, into the credit of the m.c.o.p. no. 739 of 2004, on the file of the motor accident claims tribunal, iii additional sub court, coimbatore. now, this court hereby directs the appellant to deposit the balance compensation amount with accrued interest thereon, subject to the deduction of earlier deposit, as per this court order dated 09.03.2002, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.15. after such deposit is being made, it is open to the claimant to withdraw the balance compensation amount, lying in the credit of the m.c.o.p. no. 739 of 2004, on the file of the motor accident claims tribunal, iii additional sub court, coimbatore, after filing necessary payment out application in accordance with law, subject to the deduction of withdrawals if any made as per this court earlier order.16. in the result, the above civil miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed and the award and decree dated 10.10.2005, in m.c.o.p. no. 2831 of 1999, passed by the motor accident claims tribunal, iii additional sub court, coimbatore, is modified. consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. there shall be no order as to costs.