Madras High Court
A.R. Sakthivel vs Managing Director on 23 August, 2021
C.M.A.No.2747 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23.08.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
C.M.A.No.2747 of 2015
A.R. Sakthivel .... Appellant
Versus
Managing Director
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
Salamedu, Vazhutha Reddy,
Villupuram- 605 602 .... Respondent
Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2014
made in MCOP No.501 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, III Additional District and Sessions Court, Kallakurichi
(M.C.O.P. No.36 of 2011 on the file of the Subordinate Court,
Kallakurichi).
For Appellant : Mr. D. Balachandran
For Respondent : Mr. C. S. K. Sathish
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/6
C.M.A.No.2747 of 2015
JUDGMENT
(Heard video conference)
This appeal has been filed by the claimant challenging the
impugned award dated 31.01.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, III Additional District and Sessions Court, Kallakurichi in
MCOP No.36 of 2011.
2. The appellant / claimant has filed MCOP No.36 of 2011 before
the Sub-Ordinate Court Kallakurichi seeking for a compensation of
Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of his grand mother Veerammal. Thereafter,
MCOP No.36 of 2011 was transferred from the file of the Sub-Ordinate
court Kallakurichi to the file of 3rd Additional District and Sessions
Court, Kallakurichi and renumbered as MCOP No. 501 of 2012.
3. Heard Mr.D. Balachandran, learned counsel for the appellant /
claimant and Mr.C.S.K.Sathish, learned counsel for the respondent /
Transport Corporation.
4. This Court has perused the materials and evidence available on
record before the Tribunal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2747 of 2015
5. The Tribunal has dismissed the claim of the appellant/claimant
only on the ground that he is not a Class-I Legal Heir under the Hindu
Succession Act, 1956. The appellant/claimant is the grandson of the
deceased Veerammal, who died on 31.07.2010 as a result of an accident
caused by a bus owned by the respondent Transport Corporation.
According to the appellant/claimant, he is the only Legal Heir of the
deceased Veeramal. The appellant/claimant has produced the Legal
Heirship certificate of his grand mother before the Tribunal, which has
been marked as Ex.A5 which confirms that he is the only legal heir of the
deceased Veerammal as his mother was pre-deceased his grand mother.
6. Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act reads as follows :
15. General rules of succession in the case of female Hindus.—
(1) The property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to
the rules set out in section 16,—
(a) firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any pre-deceased son
or daughter) and the husband;
(b) secondly, upon the heirs of the husband;
(c) thirdly, upon the mother and father;
(d) fourthly, upon the heirs of the father; and
(e) lastly, upon the heirs of the mother.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1),—
(a) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother shall devolve, in
the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any pre-
deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to in sub-section (1) in the
order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the father; and
(b) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her husband or from her father-in-
law shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the
children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to in
sub-section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the husband.
7. As seen from Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, it
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2747 of 2015
is clear that children of any pre-deceased son or daughter are also Class-I
legal heirs. In the case on hand, the only daughter of Veerammal pre-
deceased her, which is not in dispute. The Legal Heirship certificate,
dated 27.01.2011 issued by the Tahsildar, Sankarapuram has also been
marked as Ex.A5 before the Trial Court which confirms that the
appellant/claimant is the only legal heir for the deceased Veerammal.
However, by total non-application of mind to the settled position of law
as per Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, the Tribunal has rejected
the claim only on the ground that the appellant/claimant as Class-I Legal
Heir.
8. Therefore, the impugned order dated 31.01.2014 passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has to be necessarily set aside by this
Court and remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration on
merits and in accordance with law, with regard to the assessment of
compensation in favour the appellant/claimant.
9. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 31.01.2014
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III Additional District
and Sessions Court), Kallakurichi in MCOP No.501 of 2012 is hereby set
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2747 of 2015
aside and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed by remanding the
matter back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration on merits and in
accordance with law and the Tribunal shall pass final award, within a
period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after
permitting both the appellant as well as respondents to adduce evidence.
No costs.
10. However, it is made clear that the appellant/claimant is a Class-
I Legal Heir and entitled to receive compensation for the death of
Veerammal, who died as a result of an accident caused by a bus owned
by the respondent Transport Corporation.
23.08.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
gd/vsi2
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2747 of 2015
vsi2
To
1. The III Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Kallakurichi.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R. Section, High Court of Madras,
Chennai – 104.
C.M.A.No.2747 of 2015
23.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
