High Court of Kerala
Case Law Search
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. SANDHYA G. - MACA No. 1902 of 2006  RD-KL 1545 (8 November 2006)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMMACA No. 1902 of 2006()
1. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
1. SANDHYA G.,
2. SWAPNA T.,
For Petitioner :SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
O R D E R
J.B.KOSHY & M.N.KRISHNAN, JJ.M.A.C.A.NO.1902 OF 2006 Dated 8th November, 2006
Krishnan,J. This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirur in O.P.(M.V) No.136/02. The deceased was a Manager of the South Malabar Gramin Bank and he was earning a monthly salary of Rs.19,920/= at the time of his death. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred on account of the negligence of the second respondent and thereafter proceeded to grant a compensation of Rs.9,70,000/=. It is against that decision the insurance company has come up in appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the finding of negligence by the Tribunal is erroneous and the Tribunal was not right in rejecting the evidentiary value of the scene mahazar and finding that the second respondent was responsible for the accident. The Tribunal has considered the evidence available in the case. Even according to the charge sheet, PW2 was an eye witness to the accident. It is true that he was a person who had shown the place of accident to the police. PW2 clearly deposed before the court that the lorry came to the wrong side and hit the MACA.1902/2006 2 car and it is only on account of the negligent driving of the second respondent that the accident had taken place. His evidence is not shaken in cross examination as well. Just because a place is shown in the scene mahazar, it shall not be a conclusive proof of evidence to hold that it is the place of accident. The person who had shown the place of accident had come up before the court and had explained the circumstances and had given evidence regarding the place of accident correctly and the Tribunal found that his evidence was intrinsically reliable and acceptable and, therefore, on the basis of his evidence as well as result of the investigation proved by Ext.A13 held that the accident had taken place only on account of the negligence of the second respondent. We do not find any ground to deviate from the said finding. Therefore, the said finding is only to be affirmed. So far as the compensation is concerned, the deceased was aged 52 years at the time of his death. He had left behind only his two daughters as his wife had predeceased him. He was having a monthly income of Rs.19,920/=. The Tribunal had deducted the amount towards insurance, family benefit scheme etc. and thereafter had found that net salary is Rs.15,000/=. Thereafter it has proceeded to deduct one third for his personal expenses and had taken only a multiplier of 8 and MACA.1902/2006 3 arrived at a dependency of Rs.9,60,000/=. Since he was aged only 52 years, the multiplier taken is absolutely reasonable and, therefore, that also does not suffer from any infirmity. Only Rs.2,500/= was awarded for transport to the hospital, Rs.2,500/= for funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/= for pain and suffering. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is absolutely just and reasonable and finding of negligence is also correct and, therefore, we do not find any merit in the appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. J.B.KOSHY
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.