IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:27.11. 2008 CORAM:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No.2959 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 The Divisional Manager, The new India Assurance co. Ltd., No.1,Officer's Lane, CSI Building, Vellore-632 001 .. Appellant/2nd Respondent Vs. 1. Saridha 2. V.Sathish (Minor) 3. V.Manju (Minor) 4. V.Maheswari (Minor) 5. V.Yoganathan (Minor) 6. Muniammal .. Respondents/Petitioners 7. V.Palanikumar .. Respondent/1st Respondent Appeal filed under Section 173 of the M.V.Act against the award and decree dated 24.04.2008 made in M.C.O.P No.29 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,(Additional District Judge-cum-Fast Track Court), Vellore. For Appellant : Mr. C.Ramesh Babu For respondent : Mr. V.K.Rajagopalan (R1 to R6) R7-Given Up. J U D G M E N T The insurance Company has filed this appeal challenging the Award dated 24.04.2008 made in M.C.O.P No.29 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,(Additional District Judge-cum-Fast Track Court), Vellore. 2. It is a case of fatal accident. The accident in this case happened on 12.03.2006. The deceased Venkatesan aged 44 years, a carpenter was travelling on a two wheeler from Vaniyambadi to Ambur to go to Chennankuppam and when he turned to his right on the National Highway, a Qualis car coming from the opposite side of the road in a rash and negligent manner, proceeding towards Vaniyambadi, hit the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ motor cyclist and in that accident, the said Venkatesan suffered grievous injuries and died after two days on 14.3.2006 at the hospital. The wife aged about 30 years, minor sons aged about 7 and 1 ½ years and two daughters aged about 5 and 4 years and mother of the deceased aged 60, filed the claim petition for compensation in a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- stating that the income of the deceased was Rs.15,000/- per month. 2. In support of the claim, the wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1 and one Anandan, an eye witness was examined as P.W.2. Documents were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.8. Ex.P.1 is the Legal heir Certificate. Ex.P.2 is the first Information Report. Ex.P.3 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report. Ex.P.4 is the Post mortem Certificate. Ex.P.5 is the charge sheet. Ex.P.6 is the death Certificate. Ex.P.7 is the Insurance Police. Ex.P.8 is the Driving licence. On behalf of the appellant/respondent before the Tribunal, one Kesavan, the Development Officer of the appellant-Insurance Company was examined as R.W.1. Ex.R.1, copy of the sketch was marked as Ex.R.1. 3. Before the Tribunal, the claimants submitted that the accident happened due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the Qualis car and supported it by First Information Report Ex.P.2 and Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report, Ex.P.3 and charge sheet Ex.P.5. and the evidence of eye witness, P.W.2. 4. The plea of the appellant/respondent before the Tribunal is that the negligence was on the part of the deceased who turned the motor cycle to the right without noticing the on coming vehicle. The deceased was responsible for the accident. In support of the same, they relied on the sketch, which was marked as Ex.R.1. 5. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's plea that the accident was due to the negligence on the part of the deceased. On this issue, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the burden has been discharged by the claimants by examining the eye witness, P.W.2 and by letting in documentary evidence, like First Information Report, and Charge Sheet filed against the driver of the car. The appellant/respondent before the Tribunal examined the Development Officer R.W.1 and marked the photo copy of the sketch. The sketch is actually supposed to be a part of the investigation report. However, the Investigation report was not marked before the Tribunal. Only the sketch has been filed before the Tribunal and even in the sketch it is not clear as to the position of two vehicles involved in the accident at the time of the accident. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the appellant has not examined neither the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident nor let in any other material evidence to show that the negligence was on the part of the deceased. The overwhelming evidence on record supports the plea of the claimants that the negligence was on the part of the driver of the car and this Court is unable to come to a different finding than that has been arrived by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Tribunal. Accordingly, the finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the car and the liability fixed on the appellant to compensate the claimants is confirmed. 6. As far as the compensation is concerned, the plea made for reduction of the quantum by the learned counsel for the appellant, is rejected at the outset for the simple reason that the income of the deceased, who is admittedly a Carpenter is fixed by the Tribunal as Rs.2, 500/- per month, which is very meagre, considering the period of accident and the living wages of a Carpenter. The multiplier of 15 adopted is as per Schedule II to the Motor Vehicles Act. Even if the multiplier as alleged is marginally higher, the fact is that the income of the deceased determined by the Tribunal is very low, the compensation based on the higher multiplier is justified in this case. In the present case, including the wife, who is aged 30 years there are four minor children and an aged mother. Therefore, the total compensation in a sum of Rs.4,05,000/- is just and reasonable and does not warrant further reduction or modification. The Tribunal in this case awarded interest at the rate of 6%, which is very low only. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the quantum of solace granted by the Tribunal or the interest. 7. In the result, finding no merits, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Pursuant to order of this Court dated, 23.09.2008 the appellant deposited the entire amount. The claimants are entitled to withdraw the amount as per the order of the Tribunal. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. PAL To 1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional Special Court,Krishnagiri. 2.The Section Officer, VR.Section, High Court, Madras. + 1 CC to Mr.C.Ramesh Babu, Advocate SR.NO.66724 + 1 CC to Mr.V.K.Rajagopalan, Advocate SR.NO.66740 CMA No. 2959 of 2008 NTK(CO) EM/16.12.08 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/