NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. SARASWATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In an accident, which occurred on 3.6.2003, husband of the first respondent, working as a Night Watchman in Agricultural Development Office, died. Wife, married daughters, sons, claimed compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/-. The appellant-Insurance Company, with the leave of the Court, resisted the claim, contending inter alia that the driver of the vehicle, insured with them, was not responsible for the accident and therefore, they are not liable to pay compensation. Without prejudice to the above, they also disputed the quantum of compensation, claimed under various heads. The Tribunal, on evaluation of pleadings and evidence, found that the driver of the vehicle insured with them, was responsible for the accident and by determining the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 5,000/- and applying '8' multiplier, computed the dependency compensation at Rs. 3,32,800/-. That apart, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 5,000/-for funeral Expenses. Altogether, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,37,800/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. Questioning the quantum of compensation, the Insurance Company has preferred this appeal.

(2.) Mr.Vaidvel, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal, having determined the age of the deceased, a Night Watchman in Agricultural Department, as 58 years, ought not to have applied '8' multiplier for computing the dependency compensation. He further submitted that the Tribunal has failed to consider that respondents 2 to 5/claimants were already married and that they are not dependents. He also submitted that though the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 5,500/-, the respondents/claimants have produced Exhibit P-4, Salary Certificate, dated 15.11.2006, to the effect that the deceased earned only Rs. 5,452/- at the time of accident and therefore, the Tribunal has failed to consider the inconsistency. According to him, the Salary Certificate has not been proved in the manner known to law. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials avail able on record.

(3.) Wife, first respondent; married daughters, respondents 2,4 and 5; and sons, respondents 3, 6 and 7, have claimed compensation. Admittedly, all of them are majors. According to them, the deceased was a Night Watchman in the office of Agricultural Development, Uthirameurur and earned Rs. 5,500/- per month. Apart from denying the manner of accident, at Paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit, the appellant-Insurance Company has denied the age, income, occupation of the deceased and further denied that the respondents/claimants are not Legal representatives of the deceased and put them to strict proof. At Paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit, the appellant-Insurance Company has prayed that they may be permitted to raise all the defences that are available to the insured as per Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, in case the insured remained ex parte. Reading of the counter affidavit in entirety, does not disclose that the entitlement of the respondents/claimants, to claim compensation, has been disputed. Whereas, for the first time before this Court, the appellant-Insurance Company has questioned the entitlement of the respondents to prefer a claim petition.