NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY Vs. K. CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arise out of an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Chengalpattu, in M.O.P. No. 274 of 1980 dated 24.12.1981. C.M. A. No. 394 of 1982 ispreferred by New India Assurance Co. Ltd. whereas C.M.A. No. 861 of 1987 is preferred by claimants/petitioner in the said O.P. Brief facts are the following:

(2.) THE owner of the bus as well as the insurance company resisted the claim contending, inter alia, that it was on account of the negligence on the pan of the deceased in suddenly turning to his right, the accident has occasioned, and therefore, the petitioner are not entitled to any compensation at all. It was also alternatively contended that the claim was excessive. One other contention was raised on behalf of the insurance company, namely, the insurance company was liable as per Section 95(2)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act to an extent of Rs. 50,0007-only and not more than that. The Tribunal, on a consideration of both oral and documentary evidence, clearly found that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus belonging to the 1st respondent. The Tribunal fixed the compensation in a sum of Rs. 1,23,000/- and apportioned the same as follows: The 1st petitioner Rs. 50.000/- 2nd and 3rd petitioner each Rs. 25.000/- and the 4th petitioner Rs. 23,000/- The Tribunal also held that the policy being a comprehensive one, the insurance company cannot be heard to say that its liability is only Rs. 50,0007-. Aggrieved by the above said award of the Tribunal, the petitioner (claimants) have filed C.M.A. No. 861 of 1987 claiming enhanced compensation, the insurance company has filed C.M.A. No. 394 of 1982 for a decision that its liability is restricted to Rs. 50.000/-. We may first dispose of the appeal field by the petitioner/claimants for enhanced compensation. The first petitioner examined herself as PW 1. She has stated that her deceased husband was working as Sub-Divisional Engineers in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and was getting a monthly salary of Rs. 1,264/-. He was contributing to the family a sum of Rs. 1,000/- per mensem. At the time of the death of the deceased, he was 37 years old. To prove the age, the S.S.L.C. certificate was produced, to prove the salary of the deceased, one Balaraman, an Assistant working in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, was examined and he produced the pay-slip of the deceased, according to which the pay was Rs. 1,464.70 per month, PW 2 stated that the deceased would have even come upto the level of Superintending Engineer on a salary of Rs. 2.000/- per mensem had he lived upto 58 years. Based on his evidence, the Tribunal found that the deceased would have contributed not less than a sum of Rs. 600/- per mensem to the family and that he would have earned that amount for another 21 years, and on that basis, he has multiplied the annual contribution by 21 and arrived at a figure of Rs. 1,51,200/- Towards lump sum, payment and uncertainties of life, 1/6th of the amount was deducted, and the balance was Rs. 1,26,000/- Again from this amount another sum of Rs. 17.500/- was added towards probable loss of pensionary benefit, from the above said two amounts, the Tribunal has deducted a sum of Rs. 20,000/- paid by the Government and also the Employee's union. Thereafter, the Tribunal fixed the compensation at Rs. 1,23,000/-. The contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the deduction of Rs. 20,000/- is unsustainable in view of number of decisions of this court. He also submitted that the monthly (Sic. contribution should have) been taken at a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and on at Rs. 600/-. He also submitted that the interest at 6 per cent from the date of the award is contrary to the several decision of this court and the Supreme Court, and that interest should have been awarded at 12 per cent per annum from the date of the application. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents opposed the enhancement and submit-led that what was given by the Tribunal was just and fair compensation. However, they have no answer for the argument that the deduction of Rs. 20,0007- was not in accordance with the settled principles.

(3.) AFTER going through the award of the Tribunal and in the light of the evidence adduced by the petitioner, we do not think any further interference is called for, and the finding of the tribunal that the deceased would have contributed Rs. 600/- per month to the family seems to us fair and reasonable. Accordingly, we hold that the petitioner/claimants (appellants in C.M.A. No. 861 of 1987) are entitled for enhancement of compensation of Rs. 20.000/- more and his sum of Rs. 20.000/- shall be shared in the proportion of Rs. 8.000/ Rs. 4,0007- (Sic. Rs. 4.000/-) and Rs. 4,0007- by the claimants respectively. The claimants are also entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent annum from the date of petition both on the original award and on the enhanced compensation.