P BAGGIAM Vs. V VISWANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING dissatisfied with the award of compensation for the death of Pulliappan, wife and sons of the deceased Pulliappan have filed this Appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation. Insurance Company has filed cross objection seeking reduction of the compensation awarded to the claimants.

(2.) BRIEF facts which are necessary for disposal of this Appeal are as follows:- On 24.9.1999 " 1.00 A.M. The deceased Pulliappan was driving his jeep bearing registration No.TMF 1192 from Villupuram to go to his lands at Pillur along with one Sabapathy. Parking the jeep on the left extreme of Chennai-Trichy Highway near Ramakrishna Ashramam, the said Sabapathy had gone aside of the road to call one Kuppusamy. At that time, lorry bearing registration No.TN-47-F 7476 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came from Trichy towards Ulundurpet and while overtaking another lorry coming in the front, dashed against the jeep and caused instant death of the said Pulliappan. The jeep was totally damaged. Regarding the accident, criminal case was registered against the lorry driver in Cr.No.700/1999 of Ulundurpet police station. The deceased Pulliappan was owning agricultural lands for nearly 10 acres and he was also owning tractor and trailer and he used to hire the same for other agricultural work. Alleging that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver, Claimants have filed Petition under Section 166 of M.V. Act claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.

(3.) CHALLENGING the quantum of compensation, the learned Counsel for the Appellants/claimants submitted that the Tribunal failed to take into consideration that the deceased was owning tractor and trailer and he used to hire the same for agricultural work and apart from that, the deceased was also dealing in cattle feeds and agricultural products and the deceased was earning not less than Rs.1000 p.m. The learned Counsel for the Appellants/claimants further submitted that the Tribunal has erroneously taken the monthly income at Rs.1,500/-, without keeping in view the prospects of the deceased to earn more income. Laying emphasis upon Ex.P-8, Pass Book and Ex.P-10 Driving Licence, the learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that Ex.P-8 would indicate that the deceased was having good income and while so, the Tribunal erred in brushing aside the oral and documentary evidence.