(Prayer: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 29.04.2017 passed in M.C.O.P. No.843 of 2015 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, II Additional District Court-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirupur.)
1. The appellant-United India Insurance Company Limited has preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 29.04.2017 passed in M.C.O.P. No.843 of 2015 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, II Additional District Court-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirupur.
2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company mainly contended that the Tribunal has committed an error by not considering the facts that the deceased did not sit properly as a pillion rider in the vehicle and the accident occurred due to the carelessness of the deceased and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have taken note of these facts. The driving license was not properly verified by the Tribunal and the FIR cannot be a conclusive proof.
3. In the absence of any material evidence, the Tribunal arrived the loss of income of the deceased. Thus, the assessment of the Tribunal is to be reviewed. The compensation granted under other heads are also on the higher side and therefore, the appellant-Insurance Company has chosen to file the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
4. The accident occurred on 16.01.2015 at 09.30 hours near Old Taluk Office, Sulur, Covai, Trichy Road. The Sulur Police Station registered a case in Crime No.22 of 2015 under Sections 279 and 304 (A) IPC.
5. The sons as well as the husband of the deceased Dhanalakshmi, filed the claim petition, seeking compensation of Rs.35 lakhs.
6. The Tribunal adjudicated the issues with reference to the documents as well as the evidences produced by the respective parties. The Tribunal, based on the facts and circumstances, arrived a conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence committed by the driver of the third respondent’s vehicle. Therefore, the appellant-Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation.
7. The fact also reveals that on account of sudden breaking, the deceased Dhanalakshmi fell down suddenly and she was admitted in the hospital and subsequently declared as dead. Therefore, it is due to the rash and negligent driving of the third respondent, the accident occurred and hence the appellant-Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation.
8. The Tribunal assessed the quantum of compensation. The deceased Dhanalakshmi was employed as Supervisor in ‘Dream Garments’ at Tirupur. She was earning a monthly salary of Rs.12,000/- and she was the only breadwinner of her family. The witnesses were also produced to establish that the deceased was employed in Dream Garments at Tirupur as Supervisor and was earning a monthly salary of Rs.12,000/-. However, the Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.9,000/- for the purpose of award of compensation. Accordingly, the multiplier 14 was applied and the compensation of Rs.13,10,400/- was awarded towards loss of income, for love and affection Rs.1,00,000/- was awarded and for medical expenses Rs.60,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal.
9. Under these circumstances, this Court do not arrive a conclusion that the Tribunal has committed an error in calculating the compensation. Tinkering of compensation granted by the Tribunal on certain flimsy grounds are highly unwarranted. Even in cases where small amount of difference is raised as an objection by the Insurance Company, the Higher Court need not reduce the compensation on that ground if the awarded compensation is otherwise not exorbitant, unreasonable or otherwise. Pragmatic approach is required while granting compensation in such cases of fatality. The guidelines are already given in many number of judgments, both by the Apex Court as well as by the High Courts. If the overall compensation, under various heads, granted by the Tribunal are just and proper, then no interference needs to be done in an appeal.
10. In the present case on hand, the deceased was employed as Supervisor in a Garments Factory at Tirupur. The said fact was established and the Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.9,000/-. This Court do not find any perversity or error in calculating compensation and therefore, the grounds raised by the appellant-Insurance Company deserves no merit consideration.
11. Accordingly, the judgment and decree dated 29.04.2017 passed in M.C.O.P. No.843 of 2015 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, II Additional District Court-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirupur stands confirmed and consequently, the C.M.A.No.3627 of 2019 stands dismissed. However,
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. 12. The appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire Award amount with accrued interest, if not already deposited, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and on receipt of such deposit, the respondents/claimants are permitted to withdraw the award amount as per the Award of the Tribunal by filing an appropriate application and payments are to be made only through RTGS.