S LATHA DEVI Vs. M KAMALANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.M.A. No. 420 of 2004 and C.M.A. No. 2085 of 2006 arise out of the same Motor Accidents Claims case, viz., MACT. O.P. No. 2964 of 1999 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Court of Small Causes), Chennai. The former appeal is by the claimants and the latter is by the insurance company.

(2.) THE deceased was a driver with a Travels Company and when he was going as a pillion rider in a motorcycle, the car belonging to the insured, hit against him, resulting in multiple injuries and he finally succumbed to those injuries three days later. THE claimants sought for a compensation of Rs. 22,25,000/-. THE Tribunal awarded Rs. 3,64,500/-. Against this, these two appeals have been filed.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the claimants, who had filed C.M.A. No. 420 of 2004, submitted that the date of accident was 6.8.98 and the licence had expired on 27.7.98 and therefore, the licence was effective in view of the language of Section 14 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, which provides that the driving licence, notwithstanding the expiry will continue to be effective for a period of 30 days from such expiry. THE learned counsel further submitted that the compensation was fixed at a very low figure. THE learned counsel submitted that P.W. 4, who was running the Travels company, where the deceased was engaged as a driver, had given evidence that the deceased would earn Rs. 1,500/- per month in addition to daily batta of Rs. 150/- and 10% commission if there is some outside purchase and also tips. THE wife of the deceased, who had given evidence as P.W. 1 had also stated that he would bring home not less than Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- per month. THE learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the compensation should be enhanced.