JAVIDULLAHKHAN Vs. S M SUKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN a single accident 10 members of one family suffered. They were either injured or killed. On 18/10/1992, the fateful day one Sarasakanthammal and her husband with their family members went on Bangalore-Madras Road for the purpose of fixing alliance for their S. O.P. No. No. son Chinna Raja alias Sivakumar. The accident took place near Thulangathandalam village. The van in which the members of the family were travelling was hit by the insured lorry. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded compensation in various O.Ps. tabulated as follows: <IMG>JUDGEMENT_2518_ACJ_2010Image1.jpg</IMG>

(2.) SARASAKANTHAMMAL, her husband, son Rajendrababu, daughter Vijaya, another Aggrieved against the above award, the present appeals have been filed. daughter Jayanthi, another son Chinna Raja alias Sivakumar, son-in-law Parthiban, Ravi and grandchildren who are the minors Ramya and Aravind were going to Kanchipuram from Arcot for the purpose of fixing an alliance for Chinna Raja. It is at that time that the accident took place. Parthiban and the van driver died on the spot. The father succumbed to the injuries. Ramkumar was admitted in the Vellore CMC Hospital and he died on the next day. The evidence is that the accident took place only because of the negligence of the lorry driver. There was no space in the van and, therefore, Sukumar travelled behind very close to the van on a motor cycle and, therefore, he saw the accident and he took the injured persons to a government hospital in a vehicle which came along the way. PW 2 who is Dr. Sundaram is also a witness. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident took place only on account of the negligence of the lorry driver. We have gone through the materials on record and we find that the conclusion is based both on the oral and the documentary evidence and we find no reason to interfere with the same.

(3.) THE family members were engaged in agricultural activities, brickkiln and also dairy business. THE claimants are the legal representatives of Sarasakanthammal. She was 47 years old at the time of the accident and very healthy. According to PW 1, she would earn not less than a sum of Rs. 30,000 per month. She had her own capital and by borrowing from the bank she was doing the dairy business. She produced documents to show that the deceased Sarasakanthammal was financially independent. THE evidence of the veterinarian PW 3 would also show that she had more than 50 cows and buffalos. According to PW 1 because of the death of the male members of the family, the agricultural activities had become impossible and the brickkiln had to be closed. PW 7 is the auditor who had also given evidence in support of the financial capacity of Sarasakanthammal. On the basis of PW 9 series which show the supply of milk to hotels by Sarasakanthammal and also PW 10, PW 11 and PW 12 series with regard to the dairy activities, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased would have earned not less than a sum of Rs. 5,000 per month and adopting the multiplier of 12 had awarded a sum of Rs. 4,95,000 (rupees four lakh ninety five thousand) as compensation to be distributed amongst the claimants equally. Though the Tribunal has taken into account all these factors it is difficult to ascertain how much exactly the deceased Sarasakanthammal would have earned independently.