R DHANARAJ Vs. RUBIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE parents of the victim in a motor accident are the appellants before this Court. THE appellants filed a claim petition M.O.P.No.378 of 1982 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chengalpattu claiming a sum of Rs.1 lakh as compensation, arising out of the accident on 24.3.1982 resulting in the death of their son. THE case of the appellants is that on 24.3.1982 at about 11. A.M., their son Ethiraj had parked an Ambassador car driven by him on the left hand side of the G.S.T. Road and was standing outside the car by keeping the right hand side door open. At that time, the Ambassador car, bearing registration No. TMV.8481 coming in the opposite direction and driven rashly and negligently, had dashed against the deceased Ethiraj causing fatal injuries. THE first respondent owner of the car TMV.8481 remained exparte. THE second respondent insurance company filed a counter statement contending inter alia that the driver of the tourist car TMV.8481 had no licence to drive a taxi vehicle and therefore the insurance company is not liable to pay any amount. THE other particulars regarding the quantum of compensation were also generally denied.

(2.) P.W.3 was examined as an eye-witness to the occurrence. He spoke to the facts as set out in the claim petition that the maroon colour Ambassador car bearing No.6161 was standing on the left hand side of the road near the Pakkam railway station in G.S.T. Road. The car TMV.8481 coming in the opposite direction from Tindivanam to Madras was being driven at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. It hit the driver of the parked car 6161 who was standing outside the car with the door open. The respondents did not seriously dispute the fact that the accident was caused (sic.) TMV.8481. In fact they did not elicit any useful information in the cross-examination of P.W.I nor did they examine any witness to the contrary. The tribunal, therefore, rightly held that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the car TMV.8481.

(3.) THE tribunal proceeded to find that the first respondent-owner is liable. Regarding the quantum of compensation, the deceased Ethiraj was shown to have received a salary of Rs.253 per month at the time of the accident. He was aged about 25 years. THE first appellant was aged 58 years on the date of the accident and the second appellant was aged 50 years at the time of the accident. Taking 65 years as the period of longevity, the Tribunal held that the claimants were legitimately entitled to contribution from the deceased for a period of 15 years. Deducting Rs.103 for the personal expenses, of the deceased the contribution was fixed as Rs.150 per month. Assuming that the deceased would have remained unmarried for a period of 5 years, a sum of Rs.9,000 was arrived at, for the balance of 10 years, the tribunal took only Rs.50 as monthly contribution and worked out the total amount at Rs.6,000. For the shock and mental pain, a sum of Rs.5,000 was awarded. THE total compensation was arrived at Rs.20,000 and the claimants were awarded Rs.10,000 each.