THE UNITED INDIA FIRE AND GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, LIMITED (UNIT), THE MADRAS MOTOR AND GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. PARVATHY AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by an Insurance Company against the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarding a sum of Rs. 20,000 as compensation to the first respondent herein in respect of an accident resulting in the death of the first respondent's husband, one Subramaniam, that took place on 13th June, 1971, when he was hit by a lorry owned by the second respondent and driven by one Vellayan.

(2.) THE first respondent, who is the wife of the deceased Subramaniam, filed an application claiming a compensation of Rs. 20,000 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal under Section 100 -A of the Motor Vehicles Act in respect of the accident that took place at 6.00 A.M. on 13th June, 1971, on the ground that the lorry, belonging to the second respondent and driven by its driver in a careless and negligent manner, hit the deceased who was standing near the bus stop, resulting an the death of the deceased on the spot and that as a result of the death, the petitioner had lost her husband and also incurred monetary loss. It is her case that the deceased was earning a minimum of Rs. 12 per day as an artificial diamond worker and that source of income has been entirely lost to her. The said application for compensation was resisted by the second respondent the owner of the lorry and the appellant, the insurer. The first respondent, owner of the lorry, raised the following contentions : The deceased used to get fits. The deceased while crossing the road got fits and fell down on the right rear wheel of the vehicle. The accident was not due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry. The insurer raised the following contentions. The accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the deceased who darted across the road and fell on the right rear wheel of the vehicle. The accident was not due to the negligent driving of the lorry by the driver. It also denied the age, earning capacity, etc. of the deceased and said that the compensation claimed was excessive.

(3.) AS regards the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal found that the petitioner is a young girl aged 19 years and the deceased was aged 23 years at the time of his death, that the deceased would have lived for another 40 years if he had not met with the accident, that the deceased was hale and healthy at the time of his death, that as per the evidence of P.W. 3 in whose shop the deceased was working he was getting a daily wage of Rs. 7 to Rs. 12 and that he was a permanent employee in P.W. 3's shop. On that basis, the Tribunal held that the deceased would have earned daily a sum of Rs. 7 and would have worked for 20 days in a month. On that basis, a sum of Rs. 140 was fixed as his earnings per month, and after giving allowances for his own expenses his contribution to the family was determined at Rs. 70 per month and the annual dependency at Rs. 840. Multiplying the sum by 40, as the deceased would have lived for a period of 40 years, the amount was arrived at Rs. 33,600, but as the claimant had restricted her claim for Rs. 20,000 the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs. 20,000 as compensation. The owner of the lorry has not filed an appeal and the insurance company has alone filed this appeal challenging the said award of compensation.