IN THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ANDAMAN & NICOBAR ISLANDS PORT BLAIR. MACT Case No. 83 of 2009

Transcription

1 1 IN THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ANDAMAN & NICOBAR ISLANDS PORT BLAIR Present: Shri Sugata Majumdar, Sole Member Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. MACT Case No. 83 of V. Chellappan S/o Late Veerappan, R/o Bathu Basti. 2. Kaliammal W/o V. Chellappan R/P Bathu Basati. Claimants Versus 1. New India Assurance Company Ltd., Aberdeen Bazar, Port Blair. 2. Lt. Col(Smti) Flowerlet Joseph MNS Officer, Command Hospital, Central Command Lucknow Opposite Parties Friday the 3 rd day of August, 2012 JUDGEMENT The instant motor accident claim case is filed u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 by V.Chellappan and Kaliammal against New India Assurance Company Limited and Lt. Col.Smt. Flowerlet Joseph praying for compensation on account of death of their son Senthil Kumar in a road traffic accident. The claim case in nutshell is that on at about 3.15 PM the claimants son was proceeding by motor cycle bearing No. AN01D 6682 along with his friend T. Suresh towards Aberdeen Bazaar from Bathu Basti. When they reached near Uma Bakery at

2 2 School Line a Maruti 800 car bearing registration No.AN 01B 3003, which was coming from Lamba Line towards Uma Bakery, made sudden turn and hit the motor cycle, as a result of which the claimants son being the victim and his friend fell down at the place of occurrence. As a result, the claimants son Senthil Kumar who was riding the motorcycle sustained grievous injury in his head and other parts of the body. On the basis of the complaint by T. Suresh a case was registered in Aberdeen Police station being case No. 714 of 2009 dated under sections 279/337/338 of Indian Penal Code against the Opposite Party No. 2 being the driver of the offending vehicle namely Maruti 800 car. Due to the accident the victim sustained traumatic brain injury with multiple hemorrhagic contusions in both frontal and left parietal lobes, right temporal EDH with cerebral Edema and fracture frontal bone with pneumo-orbitum and collection in the right leg with wound infection. The victim was brought to GB Pant Hospital, Port Blair wherefrom he was referred to any recognized hospital to Chennai. On the victim was taken to Chennai and was admitted in Apollo Speciality Hospital, Teynampet, Chennai in Intensive Unit. He was discharged there from on Thereafter, on the victim was admitted in ICU of Apollo Loga hospital, Karur at unconscious and critical stage and expired on At the time of accident the victim was working as Guest Lecturer in Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Government Polytechnic College with monthly remuneration of Rs. 10,000/- and he was 26 years of old. The claimants being parents prayed for compensation for a sum of Rs. 30,71, Paisa with interest.

3 3 The summonses were served upon the Opposite Parties. The opposite parties appeared and contested the case by filing written objection denying all materials allegations. It is positive case of the opposite party No.1 that opposite party No. 2 violated the terms and conditions of the policy and insurance ; that the victim himself was driving the vehicle in zigzag manner without any license as such no compensation should be paid; that the death of the victim had no nexus with the alleged accident. According to the Opposite Party No. 1 the claim petition is liable to be rejected. The Opposite Party No. 2 rejected the claim application on the ground that amount claimed is highly excessive; the claim case is based on false story, hence it is liable to be rejected. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed:- 1. Is the case maintainable in law? 2. Had the claimants son deceased Senthil Kumar died due to any motor vehicle accident on near Uma Bakery, School Line, Port Blair caused by a Maruti 800 car bearing registration No. AN 01/B-3003 as alleged? 3. Is the claimants entitled to get any compensation in this case u/s 166 of the M.V. Act? If so, to what amount and from whom? 4. To what other relief or reliefs, if any are the claimants entitled? On behalf of the complainants, the Claimant No.1 V. Chellappan and one T. Suresh were examined as P.W. 1 and P.W.2.

4 4 No witness was produced on behalf of the opposite parties. On behalf of the complainant Order dated , MBA Certificate of the victim, F.I.R., Copy of injury report, Summons of the case, Air flight ticket, Boarding bills of in-patient and other bills, Post Mortem Report, Death certificate, copy of charge sheet, Birth Certificate of the victim, Discharge Summary of the victim, Death Summary of the victim as well as the Certificate were produced and marked variously as Ext.22. DECISION WITH REASONS Issue No.1 This issue was not pressed at the time of argument. Apart from this, it is seen the instant case is otherwise maintainable. Therefore, the issue is decided in favour of the claimants. Issue No.2 It is the case of the claimants that at the time of accident the victim was riding a Motor Cycle bearing registration No. AN 01D 6682 along with his friend T. Suresh. Therefore, T. Suresh is the eye-witness in this case. In his evidence as P.W. 2 T.Suresh stated that he along with the victim were proceeding in the Motor cycle bearing No. AN 01D 6682, which was being driven by the victim towards Aberdeen Bazaar from Bhatu Basti. When the Motor Cycle reached near Uma Bakery one Maruti 800 Car bearing registration No. AN 01B 3003 which was coming from Lamba Line made a sudden turn towards Uma Bakery. While making some sudden turn the said offending Maruti 800 car hit the Motor Cycle as a result of which P.W.2 and the victim fell down at the place of occurrence and the victim sustained serious injury in his head and other parts of the body. He was taken to GB Pant hospital and therefrom to Chennai where he was treated as inpatient. In cross examination, the statement was not shaken. The evidence was

5 5 corroborated by FIR (Ext-3), injury report (Ext-4), summary of the case in Ext-5 as well as by the final report being Ext-18. The evidence thus produced by the claimants was not rebutted by any cogent evidence by the opposite parties. Therefore, it is established that the victim Senthil Kumar sustained serious injuries in the motor accident. Next part of the question which is raised and seriously agitated by the opposite parties, is whether the victim s death is connected to the accident occurred as well as accidental injury. Exhibit No.4 is Injury Report. It shows that the victim was brought in the hospital in unconscious condition. He was referred to the mainland for treatment. He had severe head injury as well as injury in leg and was admitted to Apollo Speciality Hospital at Chennai. It also shows that the victim had hemorrhage in brain. Exhibit No.20 is the Discharge Summary when the victim was discharged from the Apollo Speciality Hospital. It is seen that the victim was admitted on and was discharged on At the time of admission he had traumatic brain injury with multiple hemorrhagic contusions in both frontal and left parietal lobes, right temporal EDH with cerebral Edema and fracture frontal bone with pneumo-orbitum and collection in the right leg with wound infection with history of road traffic accident. The Discharge Summary shows that his injury in the left thigh Ophthalmologist was consulted. At the time of discharge he was conscious, alert, a febrile, on physiotherapy and mobilization and to take normal diet. It was adviced that the victim should visit and consult with Dr. M. Balamurgan after one week. He was discharged on from Apollo Speciality Hospital. On he was admitted into Apollo Reach Hospitals at Karur with Cardio respiratory arrest with multiple organ dysfunction secondary to septicemia. He had history of sudden disorientation, fever and septic shock. However, he was treated there upto

6 from Apollo Reach Hospitals on which date he breathed his last because of sudden cardio respiratory arrest. Ld. Lawyer for the Opposite Parties vehemently argued that cause of death is Cardio respiratory Arrest. The victim was treated in Apollo Reach Hospitals at Karur, as argued by the Ld. Lawyers for the opposite parties for ailments not connected with accidental injury. I have heard the rival submissions. Material evidences show that seven days intervened between date of discharge from Apollo Speciality Hospital, Chennai and readmission in Apollo Reach Hospitals at Karur. In Karur hospital he was admitted with head injury and infection in right leg. In the accident victim had severe head injury as well as injury in the leg. At the time of discharge from Apollo Speciality Hospital he had head injury as well as infection in leg. While he was admitted in Apollo Reach Hospitals at Karur he had the same injury namely, head injury and infection in leg. The discharge summary of Apollo Speciality Hospital dated did not state that he was fit. He was readmitted very short span of seven days in Apollo Reach Hospitals at Karur. The nature of injury was same. The nature of aliments was same. Nothing is there in the record to show that intervened injury occurred to the victim between to In cross examination, PW-1 stated that his son was fit at the time of discharge. However, Exhibit No.20 does not reflect that which was suggested at cross examination by opposite party No.2 that the victim started drinking wine and for that reason he died, but PW- 1 denied. In fact, injury report Ext-4 does not show that smell of liquor was coming out from his mouth. It is also to be noted that in cross examination of PW-1 no question was put regarding intervening injury or accident between to Post Mortem report also shows that the victim had hemorrhage in brain with puss. Starting from the injury report made by GB Pant hospital authority to post-mortem report, it is seen that head injury and

7 7 hemorrhage in brain was a constant factor. Therefore, the accidental head injury was well connected with death. In absence of any other evidence to the contrary, it can safely be said that the death of the victim resulted from accidental injury. Therefore, on appreciation of material evidences I have come to the inevitable conclusion that death of the victim is attributable to the accidental injury. In other words, the victim died in the accident. Therefore, Issue No.2 is decided in favour of the claimant. Issues No.3,4: Once, it is established that the victim died in accidental injury, it is clear that compensation on account of death of the victim is payable. It is in evidence of the Petitioner No.2 that the Petitioners are the parents of the victim. No suggestion was given in crossexamination challenging the relationship of the Petitioners with the victim except that the O.P.No.2 is not entitled to any compensation. Therefore, it is unchallenged fact that the Petitioners are the parents of the victim. Now the amount of compensation is to be calculated. In U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Others Vs. Trilok Chandra & Others [1996 (4) SCC 362] it was held by the Hon ble Supreme Court of India: Besides, the selection of multiplier cannot in all cases be solely dependent on the age of the deceased. For example, if the deceased, a bachelor, dies at the age of 45 and his dependents are his parents, age of the parents would also be relevant in the choice of the multiplier.

8 8 This is a case where a bachelor died. Therefore, following the ratio of Trilok Chandra s case, the age of the Petitioner No.1 shall be relevant for choice of appropriate multiplier, as the age of the mother of the victim is not available on record. Ext. 1, which is the Order passed by the Administrative Officer of the B.R.Ambedkar Govt. Polytechnic College of Andaman & Nicobor Islands shows that the victim was engaged as Guest Lecturer of the College with payment of Rs. 250/- hour for theory class and Rs. 125/- per hour for practical class not exceeding Rs.10,000/-. No payment voucher or receipt is produced. In evidence, the Petitioner No.1 stated that the victim used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month as Guest Lecturer. This was not challenged in cross-examination. Therefore, it remains unchallenged fact that the victim used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month as Guest Lecturer. Therefore, the annual income of the victim must be Rs. (10,000 x 12) = Rs.1,20,000/-. Since the victim was a bachelor 50% of the income must have been spent by him for personal expenses, as held by the Hon ble Supreme Court of India in Sarla Verma Vs DTC [(2009) 6 SCC 121]. Therefore, deducting 50% of the income, annual loss of dependency comes to Rs. 60,000/-. Age of the Petitioner No.1 was 58. Therefore, the appropriate multiplier should be 8. Multiplying with the appropriate multiplier 8, the figure comes to Rs. 4,80,000/-. This is the loss of dependency. Claimant No.1 stated that medical and air fare expenses were Rs.13,21,119.91p. P.W.1 in cross-examination stated that he has already claimed the air-fare from his office. This amount shall not be taken into consideration. From exhibits it appears that medical expenses incurred were Rs.11,33,960/-. The Claimants stated that incidental expenses were incurred in connection with the treatment of the victim. I am inclined to grant therefore a sum of Rs.11,50,000/- in lump sum towards cost of medical treatment of the victim.

9 9 I am also inclined to grant a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards mental agony and pain and a sum of Rs.2000/- towards funeral expenses and a sum of Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate. Thus the compensation amount payable to the Claimants come as follow: Loss of dependency 4,80,000/- Medical Expenses 11,50,000/- Mental agony & pain 20,000/- Funeral expenses 2000/- Loss of estate 2500/- Total: 16,54,500/- This amount of Rs.16,54,500/- shall attract interest at a rate of 9% per annum from the date of filling of the Petition. In the Written Statement filed by the Opposite Party Insurance Company, it is admitted that the offending vehicle was insured at the time of accident. But it is alleged that terms and conditions of the policy was violated. No evidence is there on record as to violation of the terms and conditions of policy. Therefore, the O.P.No.1 is liable to pay the compensation amount. In fine, the instant Claim case succeeds. C.F paid is correct. Hence, it is

10 10 ORDERED That the instant claim case is allowed on contest against the Opposite Parties. The Claimant No.2 being the mother of the victim do get compensation for a sum of Rs. 16,54,500/- with interest at a rate of 9% per annum from the date of filling the instant claim case. The Opposite Party No.2 being the insurer, is liable to pay the compensation amount along with interest within a period of one month, by account payee cheque in the name of the Claimant No.2 Kaliammal, in case of failure of which, the Claimants shall be at liberty to initiate execution proceeding against the Opposite Party No.2. The instant claim case is thus disposed of. Dictated and corrected by me. (Sugato Majumdar) Sole Member, Sole Member Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Andaman & Nicobor Islands