Madras High Court
Subbammal vs Managing Director on 4 March, 2021
CMA(MD)No.1582 of 2010
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED 04.03.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM
C.M.A(MD)No.1582 of 2010
1.Subbammal
2.Meenakshi
3.Vasantha
4.Muthusamy .. Appellant
vs.
1.Managing Director,
Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation,
Chennai – 2.
2.N.Krishnan
3.The Branch Manager,
The New India Assurance Company Ltd.,
Namakkal. ...Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act 1988 against the award passed in MCOP No.351 of 1998 on
the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial
Magistrate), Pudukkottai, dated 16.03.2004.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA(MD)No.1582 of 2010
For Appellant : Mr.K.Baalasundaram
For Respondents : Mr.P.Prabakaran (for R1)
Mr.K.Elangovan (for R3)
R-2 Dismissed.
JUDGMENT
This appeal is directed against the award passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Pudukkottai, in
MCOP No.351 of 1998.
2.The claim petition in MCOP No.351 of 1998 was filed by the
injured claimant Valarmathy. Pending claim petition, she passed away on
21.02.1999. Thereafter, her sisters and brother were impleaded as
petitioners. It is the case of the claimants that the said Valarmathy and
her brother's wife were returning from Chennai to her native place
Aranthangi on 30.03.1997 in the first respondent's bus bearing
registration No.TN-01-N-0839. When the bus was coming near
Sepaukkam near Perambalur on Chennai-Trichy main road at 02.15 a.m,
the driver of the bus drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA(MD)No.1582 of 2010
against the second respondent's lorry bearing registration No.TMY 8179,
which was coming from the opposite direction. In the accident, the said
Valarmathy and other passengers sustained injuries. The said
Valarmathy's teeth on the upper jaw and lower jaw were broken and the
lower lip was also torn. After the accident, with the help of her brother's
wife and other passengers, she travelled in another bus and reached her
native place and thereafter, she had taken treatment at Aranthangi
Government Hospital as inpatient for 14 days from 31.03.1997 to
12.04.1997. Due to the accident, she could not do her dhoby work as
well as agricultural work. Subsequent to the filing of the claim petition,
she died.
3.The third respondent Insurance Company resisted the claim
disputing the age, income and avocation of the claimant. According to
the third respondent, the driver of the first respondent's bus drove it in a
rash and negligent manner and hence, the driver of the lorry was not
responsible for the accident. Hence, the Insurance Company is not liable
to pay any compensation. It is also stated that the claim was exorbitant
and excessive.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA(MD)No.1582 of 2010
4.The first respondent Transport Corporation also resisted the
claim stating that since the claimant died in a natural death and not as a
result of her injuries sustained in the said accident, the legal
representatives are not entitled to claim compensation.
5.During the trial, the parties adduced oral and documentary
evidence. On the side of the claimants, 2 witnesses were examined and 6
documents were marked. On the side of the respondents, driver of the bus
alone was examined and no document was produced. After analyzing the
evidence adduced by the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that
the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the first
respondent bus. Since the claimant died a natural death, the Tribunal held
that the claimants are not entitled to compensation and dismissed the
claim petition. Challenging the same, the present appeal has been filed.
6.Mr.K.Balasundaram, learned counsel for the appellant would
argue that the Tribunal failed to consider the evidence adduced in proper
perspective and the Tribunal has erred in holding that the appellants 2 to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA(MD)No.1582 of 2010
5 are not entitled to any compensation and the Tribunal erred in holding
that the death was not due to accident. According to the learned counsel,
in any event, the claimants are entitled to the medical expenses incurred
on the original claimant.
7.Heard the learned counsels appearing on either side and perused
the materials available on records.
8.In the matter on hand, it is not in dispute that the original
claimant Valarmathy sustained injuries in an accident that took place on
30.03.1997. She filed the claim petition categorically stating that from
31.03.1997 to 12.04.1997, she took treatment as inpatient in Government
Hospital, Aranthangi. Though it is further stated that from 13.04.1997,
she was taking treatment in a private hospital as outpatient, she has not
produced any documents in support of her claim.
9.It is relevant to note that she breathed her last only on
21.02.1999 i.e., after lapse of 2 years from the date of accident. It is well
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA(MD)No.1582 of 2010
settled that it is for the claimant to prove that the death occurred on
account of the injuries sustained in the accident. In the matter on hand,
the claimants failed to produce medical records of the deceased for
taking treatment till she died on 21.02.1999. Furthermore, it appears that
the dead-body was not subjected to the postmortem and no postmortem
certificate was produced before the Tribunal. The Tribunal based on the
evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs.P.2 and P.6, held that she did not die
consequent to the injuries sustained in the accident.
10.It is not in dispute that in the case of injury and when the
claimant dies during the pendency of the claim, the legal heirs are
entitled for expenses including medical expenses. In the present case,
though no medical records were produced to prove that the death
happened due to the injuries sustained in the accident, considering the
nature of the injuries sustained by the original claimant and also
considering the fact that the original claimant was taking treatment for
about two weeks, this Court awards Rs.20,000/- towards medical
expenses.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA(MD)No.1582 of 2010
11.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. The
first respondent Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the award
amount of Rs.20,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum
from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization. On
such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the amount equally
together with proportionate interest and costs. No costs.
04.03.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
skn
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Chief Judicial Magistrate), Pudukkottai.
2.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA(MD)No.1582 of 2010
K.KALYANASUNDARAM.,J
skn
JUDGMENT MADE IN
C.M.A(MD)No.1582 of 2010
04.03.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
