UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. MARAGATHAVALLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The fate should not have been so cruel, however, by a stroke, three minor children were made fatherless and the first respondent become a widow and the parents lost their son. According to the claimants on 9.10.1993, when the victim viz., Subbash Chandran, who was working as a Special Officer in a Palapattu Primary Agricultural Co.op.Bank, had traveled in a van which, hit against the lorry while overtaking. For the death of the said Subash Chandran, the claim petition was filed and was resisted by the appellant/Insurance Company as well as the eighth respondent/Insurance Company.

(2.) On perusing the pleading and the evidence on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of van as well as the lorry and were held equally responsible for the accident. As the victim was working as a Special Officer, and considering his age 43 adopted multiplier '18' and his monthly income at Rs. 4,505/-, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 7,20,000/-. As against the said award only, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company.

(3.) Mr. Jeyendrakrishnan, learned counsel for the appellant firstly submitted that the appellant/United India Insurance Company had no liability, as the award was passed against the appellant contrary to the evidence available on record. He relied on the evidence of an eye witness P.W.2, who categorically stated that the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of the lorry. Inspite of the said evidence, the learned counsel submitted that the award was passed against the appellant to the extent of 50% and liable to pay 50% of the amount. Secondly, he submitted that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is on the higher side. When the Tribunal determined the age of the deceased as 43, the learned counsel submitted, then it should have adopted multiplier of "15" as per II Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. In nutshell, the learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal should have absolved the appellant from the liability.