UNITED INDIA INUSRANCE CO LTD Vs. KOVINDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal has been filed by an Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called "the Act") against an award in M.C.O.P. No.380 of 1993 dated 22.3.1993 awarding a sum of Rs.1,21,000/- to the claimants (respondents 1 to 3 herein) with interest at 15 per cent per annum from the date of the Claim Petition as well as costs of the claim petition. THEre was also an apportionment by the Tribunal directing a sum of Rs .40,000/- each to claimants 1 and 2 (respondents 1 to 2 herein) and a sum of Rs.41,000/- to the minor claimant. THE amount payable to the minor claimant was directed to be deposited in a Bank till the attaining of the majority of the minor with a direction to pay over the quarterly interest to the first claimant. Inasmuch as the owner of the vehicle had remained exparte, in the proceedings before the lower court, the Insurance Company is disputing their liability as well as the quantum of compensation claimed by the appellants. It is not necessary to notice the other facts of the case except to state that the Lorry bearing Registration No. TDF 4329 belonging to the fourth respondent herein and driven by the fifth respondent herein. Dashed against one Paulraj going on a cycle resulting in his death. THE first claimant is the father of the deceased and the second claimant is the mother of the deceased. THE minor third claimant is the younger brother of the deceased.

(2.) IN the appeal, the INsurance company is questioning the earning capacity of the deceased and the multiplier applied for quantifying the total compensation.

(3.) IN the past this Court has been permitting withdrawal of some percentage of the award amount and making the stay absolute. While examining the question on the basis of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal Rules, 1989 (hereinafter called "the Rules) framed under Section 176 read with Section 211 of the Motor Vehicles Act, we experienced certain difficulties in permitting withdrawal of the amount awarded as compensation without reference to Rule 20 of the said Rules. IN our considered opinion, a permission granted at the interim stage without sufficient safeguards would nullify and frustrate the beneficial provisions of Rule 20 of the Rules. INasmuch as several applications are being filed seeking stay of such awards by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and an equal number of applications are filed by the claimants for withdrawing the amount pending disposal of the appeal, we directed all such applications pending before us to be posted, so that the arguments of other Advocates could also be heard and no prejudice will be caused to anybody on account of our order in the above Miscellaneous Petition, which is likely to be of a general nature. Accordingly, at the request of several counsel, we adjourned the case to 30.10.1995 and heard not only the counsel for the appellant and respondents 1 to 3 in this case, but also the other counsel like Mr. Subramanian, Mr. R.Balasubramaniam, Mr. subramaniam in the office of Mr. T.Sampath, Mr. Ranganathan, and Mr.G. Subramaniam, Senior Counsel.