The Madras High Court Bench here has refused to interfere with the order passed by a motor accident claims tribunal in Virudhunagar district awarding Rs. 6 lakh to the wife and son of a 64-year-old victim towards general damages for pain and suffering undergone by them besides loss of love and affection on account of his death.
Dismissing an appeal preferred by a nationalised insurance company, the First Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao held that there was nothing wrong in the tribunal having awarded Rs. 3 lakh each to the deceased Ramanujam’s wife R. Saraswathi and son R. Aparajithan towards general damages.
The judges pointed out that the accident victim was an ex-serviceman who had rendered meritorious service in two private companies before starting his own manpower agency. He had completed his M.Phil, submitted a thesis for his doctoral programme and was waiting to face viva-voce to defend his thesis when a bus knocked him down from a motorcycle on August 21, 2009.
“It is so obvious that the discipline which he has imbibed while serving the Indian Army, has been made a character to stay with him forever. The documents reflect the academic bent of mind of Ramanujam. At the age of 60, we find hardly anyone pursuing a doctoral degree programme, after obtaining M.A., and M.Phil., degrees from Madurai Kamaraj University.
“Whereas Ramanujam has pursued his doctoral degree… The first claimant being a widow of the deceased is the one who would have been impacted most due to the untimely death. She lost her companionship, love and affection of the deceased. Therefore, awarding of Rs. 3 lakh to her towards general compensation cannot be taken exception to,” the Division Bench said.
‘Lost guidance’
Authoring the judgement, Mr. Justice Rao also said that there was nothing wrong in having awarded Rs. 3 lakh to the son of the deceased since the latter had “lost parental supervision and guidance due to the untimely death of the deceased. From a man of the experience of the deceased, if only he was alive, the second respondent would have surely received guidance more usefully than others.”
