Madras High Court
Kaliyammal vs Mani on 13 December, 2021
C.M.A.No.1300 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.KANNAMMAL
C.M.A.No.1300 of 2018
1.Kaliyammal
2.Velusamy
3.Chandrasekar
4.Mareeswari
5.Minor Saran
6.Minor Deepak
(Minor appellants 5 & 6 are rep.by
their next friend guardian mother Mareeswari) .. Appellants
Versus
1.Mani
(Notice to R1 may be dispensed with
& set ex-parte before the Tribunal)
2.Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.,Ltd.,
Krishna Plaza, 1st Floor, No.1, Nachiappa Street,
Behind Bus Stand, Erode-638 001. .. Respondents
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated
15.12.2017 made in M.C.O.P.No.305 of 2013 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Court, Namakkal.
For Appellants : Mr.C.Paraneedharan
For R2 : Mr.G.Vasudevan
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1300 of 2018
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed for the enhancement of
compensation granted by award dated 15.12.2017 made in M.C.O.P.No.305
of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District
Court, Namakkal.
2. The appellants are the claimants in M.C.O.P.No.305 of 2013 on the
file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Court,
Namakkal. They filed the above said claim petition claiming a sum of
Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one Ammasi, who died in the
accident that took place on 06.06.2012.
3. The brief facts which lead to the present appeal are as follows:
On 06.06.2012 at about 12.30 P.M., while the deceased Ammasi was
riding a motorcycle bearing Registartion No.TN 34 A 0244 in Kolikalnatham
privu Road, proceeding to Tiruchengode New Bus Stand Road, opposite to
Baby Tea Stall, the driver of the tipper Lorry bearing Registration No.TN 34
Q 5382 belonging to first respondent, drove the said lorry in a rash and
negligent manner without adhering to the road traffic rules, dashed against the
Ammasi, due to which Ammasi sustained injuries all over his body and was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1300 of 2018
admitted in a hospital. After discharged from the hospital, he died on
07.07.2012. The appellants herein, who are the legal heirs of the deceased,
filed a petition in M.C.O.P.No.305 of 2013 before the Tribunal, claiming a
sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation for the death of their bread-
winner.
4. Resisting the claim petition, the second respondent/Insurance
Company filed a counter affidavit, denying the manner of the accident, age,
occupation and income of the deceased. It is stated that there was no
negligence on the part of the driver of the tipper lorry and the accident
occurred only due to the negligenct riding of the motorcycle by the deceased
and therefore, no amount of liability can be fixed on the second respondent.
5. On behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.P1
to P12 were marked and on the side of the second respondent/Insurance
Company, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.R1 to R5 were marked.
6. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal
came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the tipper lorry and thereby, fastened the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1300 of 2018
liability on the second respondent/Insurance Company with which the
offending vehicle was insured.
7. However, the Tribunal, considering the medical evidence adduced in
the form of Ex.P12/discharge summary, was of the view that the death was
not due to the accident and though the deceased sustained head injuries he
was conscious at the time of discharge. Therefore, the Tribunal awarded
compensation only under the heads of medical expenses for sustaining
grievous injuries, pain and sufferings and extra nourishment, totalling a sum
of Rs.1,00,892/-.
8. Being not satisfied with the quantum of the compensation awarded
by the Tribunal, the claimants/appellants have preferred the present appeal.
9. The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants would submit that
though the Tribunal has rightly found that the accident had occurred only due
to the rash and negligent act of the tipper lorry driver, awarded a very meagre
amount as compensation which requires interference. He pointed that the
finding of the Tribunal that the death was not due to the accident is erroneous
since the deceased had sustained as many as six fractures and was admitted in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1300 of 2018
the hospital for treatment, which alone led to respiratory arrest, being the
cause for his death. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal is liable to be set
aside and accordingly, the amount of compensation has to be enhanced
appropriately.
10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the second
respondent/Insurance Company would submit that admittedly, though the
deceased Ammasi sustained injuries in the accident, he was admitted in the
hospital and recovered and also discharged and thereafter only he died.
Taking into consideration this aspect, the Tribunal rightly found that the death
was not due to the accident and rightly awarded the compensation under the
heads of grievous injures, pain and sufferings and medical expenses and
therefore, the appellants are not entitled to the enhancement of the
compensation and thus, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.
11. The point for consideration arises in this appeal is whether the
appellants are entitled to the enhancement of compensation. It is not in
dispute that the deceased sustained injuries in the accident and was admitted
in the hospital and discharged after treatment. Later, he died after a period of
one month from the date of the accident. A perusal of Ex.P12/discharge
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1300 of 2018
summary issued by KMC Hospital, Erode, would disclose that the deceased
had sustained both simple and grievous injuries, of which, head injury
sustained by him was simple in nature and therefore, at the time of discharge,
he was conscious. Therefore, in such circumstances, since the deceased after
getting treatment was discharged, it cannot be attributed that the deceased
had died only due to the accident. Since the deceased got recovered and later
died due to respiratory arrest, the liability cannot be fastened on the Insurance
Company by construing that the death had occurred only due to the accident.
Therefore, the Tribunal has righly considered this aspect in a well considered
manner and to the maximum extent, has rightly awarded the compensation
under the heads of grievious injuries, pain and sufferings and extra
nourishment and this Court also does not find any infirmity to interfere with
the same. Accordingly, this Court does not find any merit to entertain the
present appeal.
12. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and a
sum of Rs.1,00,892/- awarded by the Tribunal as compensation to the
appellants, along with interest and costs, is confirmed. The second
respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award amount along
with interest and costs, less the amount if any already deposited, within a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1300 of 2018
period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment to the
credit of M.C.O.P.No.305 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Principal District Court, Namakkal. On such deposit, the appellants
1 to 4 are permitted to withdraw their respective share of the award amount
now determined by this Court, as per the ratio of apportionment fixed by the
Tribunal, along with proportionate interest and costs, less the amount if any,
already withdrawn, by making necessary applications before the Tribunal.
The share of the minor appellants 5 and 6 are directed to be deposited in any
one of the Nationalised Bank, till they attain majority. On such deposit, the
fourth appellant, being the mother of the minor appellants 5 and 6 is
permitted to withdraw the accrued interest, once in three months for the
welfare of the minor appellants 5 and 6. No costs.
gbi 13.12.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
To
1.The Principal District Judge,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Namakkal.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1300 of 2018
S.KANNAMMAL, J.
gbi
C.M.A.No.1300 of 2018
13.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
