Madras High Court
Maariyammal vs J.Saravanan on 1 February, 2021
C.M.A.No.2396 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
CMA. No.2396 of 2012
1.Maariyammal,
D/o.Ponnusamy @ Dakkan,
2.Vasanthi,
D/o.Ponnusamy @ Dakkan,
3.Subramani,
S/o.Ponnusamy @ Dakkan ... Appellants
..vs..
1.J.Saravanan,
S/o.Jagadesh,
2.The Divisional Manager,
The New India Assurance Company Limited,
No.1, Officers Line, CSI Building,
Vellore. ... Respondents
Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, against the judgment and decree dated 26.06.2012 in
M.C.O.P.No. 462 of 2009, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Principal District Judge, Vellore.
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2396 of 2012
For Appellant : Mr.M.Sivakumar for Mr.C.Prabakaran
For Respondents : Mr.M.G.Anandan for R2
No Appearance for R1
----
JUDGMENT
“This matter is heard to Virtual Hearing”
Dissatisfied with the judgment and decree, dated
26.06.2012, passed by the tribunal dismissing the Claim Petition,
the claimants are before this Court to set aside the judgment and
decree and for compensation.
2. It is the case of the claimants/appellants herein that on
10.03.2009 at about 6.00 p.m, the deceased P.Murugan was
walking on the left side of the road at Karasamangalam road
opposite to the church, at that time, an auto bearing Reg.No.
TN-23-AD-6571 driven by its driver towards north to south, came in
a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed against the
deceased and caused grievous head injury. The deceased was
immediately taken to the Vellore Government Hospital and then
admitted to Government Hospital, Chennai and subsequently died in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2396 of 2012
the Hospital. The appellants filed a claim petition before the
tribunal, claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- for the death of
their brother P.Murugan, who died in a motor accident. The tribunal
after analyzing both oral and documentary evidences, has come to
the conclusion that the claimants are not solely depending on the
deceased Murugan and are also not legal heirs of the deceased. On
the said ground, the tribunal has dismissed the claim petition filed
by the claimants/appellants herein.
4. Aggrieved over the same, the claimants/ appellants have
preferred the present appeal to set aside the Judgment and decree
of the Tribunal and for compensation.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the
appellants/Claimants, the tribunal ought to have accepted the
Relationship Certificate Ex.P6 issued by the Revenue Authority to
prove that the Claimants are sisters and brother of the deceased
and they are depending upon the income of the deceased. The
Claim Petition was filed by the sisters and brother of the deceased
as in the capacity of the legal representative as the deceased
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2396 of 2012
remains unmarried till his death, hence the said claim is
maintainable as per the M.V.Act. Furthermore, the tribunal failed to
award compensation under the heads of Love and affection, future
loss of Income, transport charge and funeral expenses etc.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the
2nd respondent/ Insurance company denied the mode of accident
as narrated by the appellants/claimants and also denied the
negligence on the part of the driver of the insured vehicle.
Furthermore, the claimants are aged more than 47 years and they
are earning members and they never dependents of the deceased.
The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/ Insurance company
submitted that the claimants are not legal heirs of the deceased and
therefore the claimants are not entitled for the compensation and
hence the order of dismissal by the Tribunal does not require any
interference by this Court.
7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/
claimants and the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd
respondent/ Insurance Company and perused the materials
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2396 of 2012
available on record.
8. Before the Tribunal, witnesses P.W.1 & P.W.2 were
examined and Exhibits P1 to P7 were marked on the side of the
claimants whereas R.W.1 & R.W.2 were examined and exhibits R1
to R4 were marked on the side of the respondents.
9. According to the learned counsel for the
claimants/appellants the claimants are sisters and brother of the
deceased and they are dependants of the deceased for their lively
hood, without any basis, the tribunal has wrongly rejected the
claim petition. The other contention of the appellants is that in the
absence of any contra evidence to disprove the relationship of the
appellants with the deceased Murugan, the tribunal ought not to
have dismissed the claim petition. In support of his arguments, the
learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance of the judgment
of this Court reported in 2013 (1) TNMAC 290 in the case of
Division Manager, New India Assurance Co.Ltd, Vellore
Vs.G.Selvi & Others. The relevant paragraph relied upon the
learned counsel for the appellants is extracted hereunder;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2396 of 2012
30 . It is true that the term 'legal representative'
has not been defined under the Motor Vehicles
Act. But, in the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in
Gujarat State Road Trans. Corpn. v. Ramanbhai
Prabhatbhai, 1987 ACJ 561 (SC), it is observed
that, "In Indian society brothers, sister? and
brothers' children, etc., live together and they are
dependent upon the breadwinner of the family".
10. In the present case on hand, no materials were placed
before the tribunal to prove that the appellants were living together
with the deceased. Based on Ex.P6/Relationship Certificate marked
by the appellants/claimants, the tribunal has observed that the
claimants/appellants herein are not dependents of the deceased
Murugan and also not depending on the income of the Murugan.
Therefore, it is clear that the appellants who are sisters and brother
are not solely depending on the deceased Murugan. Further
document viz., Ex.P6 is only a Relationship Certificate issued by the
Tahsildar and no other documents were marked before the tribunal
to substantiate their claim that they were dependents of the
deceased. In the absence of any evidence to show that they lived
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2396 of 2012
together with the deceased till the date of accident, the claim made
by the appellants cannot be accepted. The tribunal has also rightly
rejected the claim of the appellants. Therefore, the decision cited
supra relied upon the appellants will no longer helpful to the
appellants.
11. The other contention of the appellants is that they are
entitled for compensation under the heads Loss of Love and
Affection and Funeral Expenses. The learned counsel appearing for
the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company has not seriously disputed
for awarding compensation to the appellants under the said heads.
Hence, a sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rs.25,000/- each) is granted to the
claimants under the head 'Loss of Love and Affection and a sum of
Rs.5,000/- towards 'Funeral Expenses'.
12. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly
allowed, by awarding a total amount of compensation of
Rs.80,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from
the date of petition till the date of deposit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2396 of 2012
13. The 2nd respondent/ Insurance Company shall deposit
the compensation amount, as awarded by this Court, along with
interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till
the date of deposit. On such deposit being made, the appellants are
permitted to withdraw the amount as per the apportionment fixed
by this Court, on filing appropriate applications before the tribunal.
No costs.
01.02.2021
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes
ak
To
1. The Principal District Judge,
(Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,)
Vellore.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2396 of 2012
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.,
ak
CMA.No.2396 of 2012
01.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
