SARASU Vs. KRISHNASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Court), Coimbatore at Tirupur, by its judgment and decree dated 19.06.2002 made in M.C.O.P. No: 6277 of 1996 preferred by the claimants for enhanced compensation.

(2.) THE brief facts stated by both parties before the lower Court are as follows : " (i) On 27.10.1995 at 5.30 p.m. one Ramasamy was proceeding in his motorcycle bearing Registration No: TN 39 B 1086 in Uthukuli - Tirupur road towards west at the right side end. At that time, the 1st respondent, who was driving his vehicle bearing registration No: TN 37 N -357 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motorcycle. In the accident, Ramasamy died on the spot and the motorcycle was also damaged completely. At the time of the accident, the deceased was aged 45 years. He was conducting calcium kiln at Karumarumpalayam and earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month and was also earning a sum of Rs.2,000/- from letting out his bullock cart. THE claimants were solely depending upon the income of the deceased for their livelihood. THE accident happened only due to the negligence on the part of the 1st respondent and hence, the respondents are liable to pay compensation to the claimants. (ii) THE 2nd respondent filed counter affidavit contending inter alia that it is the deceased who drove his motorcycle in a rash and negligent way and caused the accident by hitting against the bus. Since the deceased was driving the motorcycle in a high speed, he lost control and dashed against the bus. Hence, the deceased is responsible for the accident and hence, the respondents are in no way liable to compensate the claimants. More over, it is not proved by the claimants whether the deceased is the owner of the motor cycle whether he had a valid driving licence his income, his age, his occupation, etc. In any event, the compensation claimed is very much on the higher side and hence, the claim petition may be dismissed. " 2. THE lower Court had awarded a sum of Rs.3,34,000/- in favour of the claimant out of the claim of a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-. THE lower Court had not awarded subsequent interest from the date of petition till the date of deposit and also repair charges for the damaged vehicle. Aggrieved against the said findings, the claimants have preferred this appeal.

(3.) I have given anxious consideration to the arguments advanced on the side of the appellant and to the contentions raised by the respondents before the lower Court. The case of the appellants / claimants would be that the lower Court had wrongly come to the conclusion that the claimants attempted to commit fraud upon the Court by producing Ex.A.11, the bill for doing repair works of the damaged vehicle. The said document Ex.A.11 would go to show that a sum of Rs.11,649/- was spent towards repair charges for the motorcycle bearing Registration No: TN 39 B 1086. No doubt, the date mentioned in the bill was 12.10.1995. The document produced by the claimant in Ex.A.4, the Motor Vehicle Inspection Report would show that the vehicle bearing Registration No: TN 39 B 1086 was totally damaged on its front side and these damages were mentioned in the said report. Similarly, the photograph of the damaged motor cycle bearing Registration No: TN 39 B 1086 were produced as Ex.A.9 series. They would also confirm that the said motor cycle bearing Registration No: TN 39 B 1086 had sustained damages in accordance with Ex.A.4, the Motor Vehicle Inspection report. The lower Court did not believe the bill Ex.A.11. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the said date mentioned in Ex.A.11 as 12.10.1995 was mistakenly written committed by the issuing person instead of 12.11.1995 and the same was also inadvertently produced in the evidence. The lower Court even though had not accepted Ex.A.11, the explanation offered by the learned counsel for the claimant before the lower Court ought to have been considered and a reasonable compensation for the damages sustained by the claimants in repairing the vehicle ought to have been fixed and awarded. From out of the total evidence, the duty of the Court is like just sifting the chaff from the grain and to accept the correct evidence. It should not get disturbed by the mistake or wrong committed by the parties before the Court. Similarly, the Court need not penalise the parties for the act or mistakes which could have been committed by the third parties. Such benefit should always be given to the parties as they approach the Court only for their redressal. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant could have been true or untrue. In the aforesaid circumstances, the factum of damages caused to the vehicle bearing registration No: TN 39 B 1086 has been shown to the Court through Exs. A.4 and A.9. The aggrieved parties namely the claimants are entitled to get compensation for the damages from the party who is liable to compensate them. The person who is liable to compensate such damages cannot be left enriched by not paying the compensation to the aggrieved person for the mistakes which could have been committed by the person while issuing Ex.A.11. Therefore, the decision of the lower Court to dis-allow the claim for the repair charges and also to reject interest on the awarded compensation from the date of petition till the date of payment are not correct. The finding of the lower Court to desist from awarding interest for the compensation is amounting to denial of the statutory right accrued to the claimants. The Court should have been kind enough towards the people engulfed in grief for no fault of theirs. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the lower Court ought to have awarded compensation for the damages caused to the vehicle as well as the interest on the compensation amount. The lower Court had not believed Ex.A.11. Therefore, it could have relied upon the documents Exs. A.4 and A.9 in order to asess the compensation. No doubt, the front portion of the two wheeler had been damaged in toto. Therefore, the approximate compensation awardable towards such repair charges should have been atleast Rs.9,000/- in the year 1995. Therefore, a sum of Rs.9,000/- should have been awarded towards repair charges. The lower Court had awarded a sum of Rs.3,34,000/- towards compensation for the loss of life of the deceased person. The method of calculating the compensation by the lower Court by fixing the multiplier at 13 and the salary of Rs.3,000/- and the monthly dependency at Rs.2,000/-, had come to an assessment of compensation for the loss of life of the deceased at Rs.3,12,000/- and for the loss of consortium for the wife at Rs.20,000/- and Rs.2,000/- funeral expenses are all perfect in accordance with law. Therefore, this Court finds that the damages for the two wheeler should have been awarded along with the said sum. Therefore, a total sum of Rs.3,43,000/- should have been awarded by the lower Court with subsequent interest from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Therefore, it has become necessary for this Court to award a sum of Rs.3,43,000/- as compensation for the claimants and out of the said sum, the claimants are entitled to 9% interest per annum on the sum of Rs.3,34,000/- as awarded by the lower Court from the date of petition till the date of realisation and at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the enhanced compensation of Rs. 9,000/- from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part with proportionate costs throughout.