Madras High Court
Selvi vs Purusothaman on 21 January, 2021
C.M.A.No.3468 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.01.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
C.M.A.No.3468 of 2019
1.Selvi
2.Dhamodharan
3.Ayyappan .. Appellants
Vs.
1.Purusothaman
2.The Cholamandalam General
Insurance Co. Ltd.
Represented by its Branch Manager
Dare house, 2nd floor
NLC Bose road
Chennai-600 001. .. Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 09.10.2018 made
in M.C.O.P.No.10 of 2013 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Special District Court, Villupuram.
For Appellants : Mr.M.Manokar
for Mr.R.Rajarajan
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.3468 of 2019
For R1 : No appearance
For R2 : Mr.M.B.Raghavan
JUDGMENT
This matter is heard through 'Video-conferencing'.
The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed challenging the order of
dismissal dated 09.10.2018 made in M.C.O.P.No.10 of 2013 on the file of
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Court, Villupuram.
2.The appellants are claimants in M.C.O.P.No.10 of 2013 on the file of
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Court, Villupuram. They
filed the said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as
compensation for the death of one Thangarasu, who died in the accident that
took place on 18.04.2008.
3.According to the appellants, on the date of accident, i.e., on
18.04.2008, at about 1.00 p.m., while the deceased Thangarasu was riding in
his motorcycle from Kalmandabam to Kondur on the extreme left side of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.3468 of 2019
road, near Ramareddikulam, the driver of the Carrier belonging to the 1st
respondent, which was coming behind the motorcycle drove the same, in a
rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased and caused the
accident. In the accident, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died in the
hospital. Therefore, the appellants have filed the above claim petition
claiming compensation as against the respondents.
4.The 1st respondent, owner of the Carrier, remained exparte before the
Tribunal.
5.The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company insurer of the Carrier filed
counter statement denying the averments made by the appellants and stated
that there is a delay in lodging the complaint before the Police. The death of
the deceased Thangarasu was not due to the injuries sustained by him. The
driver of the vehicle belonging to the 1st respondent was not responsible for
the accident. The accident has occurred only due to negligence act of the
deceased. The driver of the vehicle belonging to the 1st respondent did not
possess valid driving license to drive the vehicle. The legal heirs of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.3468 of 2019
deceased Thangarasu filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.149 of 2009 on
09.02.2009. On 15.07.2009, there was a settlement arrived at between the 2nd
respondent and the claimants in M.C.O.P.No.149 of 2009 before the Legal
Services Authority, Villupuram and the 2nd respondent has deposited the
cheque on 12.08.2009 for Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.10,800/-. The claimants in
M.C.O.P.No.149 of 2009 appeared before the Legal Service Authority,
Villupuram, and on verification of the legal heir certificate, the settlement
was recorded. Therefore, the appellants are not the legal heirs of the deceased
Thangarasu and hence, the claim petition may be dismissed. Therefore, the
2nd respondent/Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation to
the appellants. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company has also denied the
age, avocation and income of the deceased. In any event, the compensation
claimed by the appellants is excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim
petition as against the respondents.
6.Before the Tribunal, the 1st appellant, wife of the deceased examined
herself as P.W.1, one Dhanraj, eye-witness to the accident was examined as
P.W.2 and eight documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P8. The respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.3468 of 2019
examined one Vinothkumar as R.W.1 and marked the judgment of the Lok
Adalat as R.W.1. One Syed Mohammed, was examined as C.W.1 and the
legal heir certificate issued by C.W.1 was marked as Ex.C1.
7.The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary
evidence, dismissed the claim petition holding that the compensation cannot
be granted twice for the same accident.
8.Against the said order of dismissal dated 09.10.2018 made in
M.C.O.P.No.10 of 2013, the appellants have come out with the present
appeal.
9.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the
appellants alone are the only legal heirs of the deceased Thangarasu as per
Ex.P8 and Ex.C1, legal heir certificates. The Tribunal erroneously dismissed
the claim petition filed by the appellants based on Ex.R1, the award of the
Lok Adalat passed in favour of one Latha and her two minor children, who
are the third parties to the deceased Thangarasu. The 2 nd respondent has not
proved that the said Latha and her minor children are the only legal heirs of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.3468 of 2019
the deceased Thangarasu. The amount paid by the 2nd respondent to some
third parties could not exonerate them from their liability to pay the
compensation to the real legal heirs and dependants of the deceased
Thangarasu. The appellants filed an application to implead them in
M.C.O.P.No.149 of 2009, which was dismissed as the 2nd respondent opposed
the same. The appellants are not parties to the award passed in
M.C.O.P.No.149 of 2009. The Tribunal misconstrued the evidence of C.W.1,
who deposed that the appellants are the legal heirs of the deceased
Thangarasu and prayed for setting aside the award of the Tribunal and for a
direction to the 2nd respondent to pay compensation to the appellants.
10.The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/Insurance
Company contended that the Tribunal after considering all the materials on
record, rightly dismissed the claim petition and prayed for dismissal of the
appeal.
11.Though notice has been served on the 1st respondent and his name is
printed in the cause list, there is no representation for the 1st respondent either
in person or through counsel.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.3468 of 2019
12.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as the
learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company and
perused the entire materials on record.
13.From the materials on record, it is seen that it is the case of the
appellants that they are the legal heirs of the deceased Thangarasu, who died
in the accident that occurred on 18.04.2008, but filed claim petition claiming
compensation for the death of Thangarasu in the year 2013. It is the case of
the 2nd respondent before the Tribunal that one Latha and her two minor
children filed M.C.O.P.No.149 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District
Court, Villupuram, claiming compensation for the death of very same
Thangarasu in the very same accident. The matter was referred to Lok Adalat.
The said Latha and officials of the 2nd respondent appeared before the Lok
Adalat, arrived at a compromise and the 2nd respondent agreed to pay a sum
of Rs.3,90,000/- to the claimants in M.C.O.P.No.149 of 2009. The said award
was passed in the Lok Adalat on 15.07.2009 and as per the award, the 2 nd
respondent deposited the amount arrived to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.149 of
2009. The claimants in M.C.O.P.No.149 of 2009 appeared before the Legal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.3468 of 2019
Service Authority, Villupuram and on verification of the legal heir certificate,
the settlement was recorded by the Lok Adalat. Therefore, the 2nd
respondent/Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation claimed
by the appellants. The Tribunal examined one Syed Mohammed as Court
Witness and marked the legal heir certificate as Ex.C1 through C.W.1. C.W.1
in his evidence has deposed that he only issued legal heir certificate to the
appellants after enquiry. The Tribunal considering the fact that two different
legal heir certificates were issued to two different persons and that one of the
claimants have already filed M.C.O.P.No.149 of 2009 in the year 2009 itself
and the same was settled before the Lok Adalat on 15.07.2009 on verification
of the legal heirs of the deceased Thangarasu, dismissed the claim petition
filed by the appellants holding that the appellants can claim compensation
only in M.C.O.P.No.149 of 2009 and cannot award separate compensation in
the present M.C.O.P.
14.From the materials on record, it is seen that the appellants have not
approached the Court at earliest point of time, but filed claim petition only in
the year 2013 after five years of the accident, which took place on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.3468 of 2019
18.04.2008, while the award was passed by the Lok Adalat in
M.C.O.P.No.149 of 2009 on 15.07.2009 itself. The learned counsel appearing
for the appellants contended that the appellants filed an application in
M.C.O.P.No.149 of 2009 to implead them as parties and the same was
dismissed on the objection raised by the counsel for the 2nd respondent. The
learned counsel for the appellants has not furnished any details as to when the
said application was filed, the number of the application and date of the
dismissal. Further, the appellants have not taken any further proceedings
challenging the dismissal of the said application or award dated 15.07.2009
passed in Lok Adalat. In view of the above materials, the appellants are not
entitled to maintain the present claim petition. There is no error in the award
of the Tribunal dismissing the claim petition warranting interference by this
Court.
15.In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No
costs.
21.01.2021
Index : Yes / No
kj
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.3468 of 2019
V.M.VELUMANI, J.,
kj
To
1.The Special District Judge
(Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
Villupuram.
2.The Section Officer
V.R.Section
High Court, Chennai.
C.M.A.No.3468 of 2019
21.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
