The Branch Manager v. C.Saranraj

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 27.04.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI C.M.A.No.1171 of 2018 and C.M.P.No.9663 of 2018 The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office, Krishnagiri Town and District.

..Appellant/2nd Respondent Vs.

1.C.Saranraj ..1st Respondent/Claimant 2.S.Selvam ..2nd Respondent/1st Respondent Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 07.10.2016 made in M.C.O.P.No.3501 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court, Krishnagiri.

For Appellant : Mr.C.Paranthaman For R1 : Mr.T.Panchatsaram For R2 : No appearance

JUDGMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company, challenging the award dated 07.10.2016 made in M.C.O.P.No.3501 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court, Krishnagiri. 2.The appellant/Insurance Company is the 2nd respondent in M.C.O.P.No.3501 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court, Krishnagiri. The 1st respondent filed the said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that took place on 11.11.2013. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the pick up van belonging to the 2nd respondent and directed the appellant/Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.7,34,600/- as compensation to the 1st respondent. Against the said award dated 07.10.2016 made in M.C.O.P.No.3501 of 2013, the appellant/Insurance Company has come out with the present appeal.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal erred in fixing negligence on the part of the driver of the 2nd respondent and fastening liability on the appellant instead of exonerating the appellant. The injuries sustained by the 1st respondent are only non-schedule injuries. The Tribunal erred in adopting multiplier method instead of applying percentage method for granting compensation towards disability. The Tribunal failed to note

that the name of the traniee mentioned in Ex.P15/pay slip & Ex.P16/salary certificate is 'Saranrasu', whereas the 1st respondent's name is 'Saran Raj'. The 1st respondent did not produce the driving license at the time of the accident. The Tribunal without any basis accepted the percentage of disability fixed by PW2/Doctor and without any basis, fixed income of the 1st respondent as Rs.8,000/- per month and awarded compensation. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal under different heads are excessive and prayed for setting aside the award of the Tribunal. 4.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent contended that the accident has occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the pick up van belonging to the 2nd respondent.

The 1st respondent examined himself as PW1 and marked FIR, which was registered against the driver of the 2nd respondent and proved his contention. The appellant did not examine any witness to disprove the contention of the 1st respondent and substantiate their case that the 1st respondent was responsible for the accident. The Tribunal considering the documents marked through PW3/Deputy Manager, (Human Resources) in Corborandum Univercel Pvt. Ltd., Hosur, held that the 1st respondent was a trainee and was earning a sum of Rs.8,750/- per month. The Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation by adopting multiplier method as the 1st respondent has suffered functional disability and lost his earning capacity and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

5.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and perused all the materials available on record. 6.From the materials available on record, it is seen that the 1st respondent has contended that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the pick up van belonging to the 2nd respondent. On the other hand, it is the contention of the appellant that the 1st respondent accepted the accident and that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the van belonging to the 2nd respondent. From the award of the Tribunal, it is seen that the 1st respondent examined himself as PW1 and deposed that the accident occurred only due to negligence on the part of driver of pick up van belonging to 2nd respondent and marked Ex.

P1/FIR, which was registered against the driver of the van belonging to the 2nd respondent. The appellant has not examined the driver of the van belonging to the 2nd respondent or any other witness to prove that the accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the van belonging to the 2nd respondent and to prove that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the 1st respondent. Even though the FIR was registered against the driver of the van belonging to the 2nd respondent, the contents of the FIR were not objected by the appellant or 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent or driver of the lorry did not lodge any complaint against the 1st respondent.

The Tribunal considering all the above materials, held that the accident has occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the van belonging to the 2nd respondent.

said finding of the Tribunal warranting interference by this Court.

7.As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal considering the evidence of the 1st respondent when he deposed before the Tribunal as PW1 and the nature of work and the functional disability suffered by him, held that the 1st respondent cannot do the work as he was doing earlier, fixed disability of the 1st respondent at 30% and awarded compensation towards loss of earning power by adopting multiplier method. The Tribunal has fixed a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month as notional income of the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent is a diploma holder in EEE. The accident is of the year 2013 and the notional income fixed by the Tribunal is not excessive. Further, the amount granted by the Tribunal under the head of loss of earning power and other heads are not excessive. In my considered opinion, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and the same does not warrant any interference by this Court.

8.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the sum of Rs.7,34,600/- awarded by the Tribunal as compensation to the 1st respondent along with interest and costs is confirmed. The appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award amount together with interest and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the 1st respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount awarded by the Tribunal along with interest and costs, less the amount if any, already withdrawn, by filing necessary applications before the Tribunal. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Special Subordinate Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Krishnagiri.

Copy to : The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Madras.

+1 cc to M/s.C.Paranthaman,Advocate Sr.No. 41030 AKM/04.09.19/3P-4C / C.M.A.No.1171 of 2018 and C.M.P.No.9663 of 2018