P. RENGARAJAN Vs. SANTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above appeal has been filed by the owner of the lorry involved in the accident and the insurance company against the judgment and the award of compensation dated 26.9.91 in M.C.O.P. No. 57 of 1990 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Sub Court, Pattukottai. The claimant before the Tribunal is the wife, of one Thyagarajan, who died in the accident, impleading also to the claim petition the father and mother of the deceased as respondent Nos. 4 and 5. The educational qualification of the deceased was M.A., B.Ed., and he was working as direct recruit Sub -Inspector in the Tamil Nadu Police Service. At the time of his death, he was serving as Sub -Inspector of Police, Needamangalam Police Station. It was claimed that the deceased was a bright officer who earned appreciation from all quarters, even at the threshold of his career, that at about 6 a.m. on 22.6.1989 when he was travelling by his motor cycle bearing registration No. TNZ 2260 to go to his work spot from Mannargudi, the driver of the lorry (respondent No. 1) bearing registration No. TNT 4791 belonging to the respondent No. 2 coming from the opposite side, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle without even observing the rules of the road or sounding the horn, as a consequence of which, the victim was thrown off from the motor cycle and sustained serious injuries. Though initially the victim was taken to a private hospital at Needamangalam, later he was taken to the Government Hospital, where he was pronounced dead. Further, the case of the claimant was that he was drawing a salary of Rs. 2,400 per month, that he had other allowances due to his credit; that if he was not dead, he would have worked for another 25 years in service; that respondent No. 4, the mother, is actually living with her husband, respondent No. 5 and her other children; that neither respondent No. 4 nor respondent No. 5 were ever dependants since they had their own independent income and properties and that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 7,00,000 to make good the loss of her husband on various grounds as claimed in the petition.

(2.) RESPONDENT Nos. 1 and 2 were set ex parte. The respondent No. 3 filed a counter contending that it is for the claimants to prove that respondent No. 1, driver had proper licence to drive the vehicle in question and that the vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner without observing the rules of the road as claimed and that the driver of the lorry could not be really held responsible for the accident and, therefore, not entitled to any sum as claimed.

(3.) ON the above claims and counter claims, the petition came to be tried and PW Nos. 1 to 3 were examined, of which, the claimant was PW 1 and for the respondents, respondent No. 5, father was examined. On both sides, documents were marked. On a consideration of materials on record, the Tribunal, by its judgment and award dated 26.9.1991, held that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the lorry belonging to the respondent No* 2 by the respondent No. 1, driver and, therefore, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are liable. - So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal arrived at a sum of Rs. 4,90,800 payable with interest at 12 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of payment. While awarding such sum, the Tribunal further apportioned the amount by granting half share to the claimant and the other half share to the parents who are respondent Nos. 4 and 5. In arriving at the compensation as awarded, the Tribunal accepted the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs. 2,249 and a total of Rs. 2,400 inclusive of travelling allowance and deducting '/5th towards the personal expenses, the monthly loss of income was fixed at Rs. 1,920 and the annual loss at Rs. 23,040. Applying a multiplier of 25, the total compensation payable was on that account arrived at Rs. 5,76,000. For lump sum payment, '/5th of the amount was deducted and, therefore, it was arrived at Rs. 4,60,800. As against the claim under the heading of loss of consortium, Rs. 15,000 was allowed, and a sum of Rs. 10,000 in favour of the parents for love and affection. Rs. 5,000 was allowed towards expenses for carrying the victim to the hospital and as the funeral expenses. Hence, the compensation of Rs. 4,90,800 was awarded. Aggrieved, the owner of the lorry and the insurance company have filed the above appeal.