Madras High Court
The District Collector vs Muthupetchi on 10 March, 2021
CMA(MD)No.1195 of 2010
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED 10.03.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM
C.M.A (MD)No.1195 of 2010
and
M.P(MD)No.2 of 2010
The District Collector,
Collectorate Office,
Madurai.
.. Appellant
vs.
1.Muthupetchi
2.Manimegalai
3.Manimaran
...Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act 1988 against the award and decree dated 25.03.2008 made
in MCOP No.323 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal-cum-Sub Court, Periyakulam, Theni.
For Appellant : Mr.J.Gunaseelanmuthiah
Special Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.M.Jegadeeshpandian
1/7
http://www.judis.nic.in
CMA(MD)No.1195 of 2010
JUDGMENT
This appeal is directed against the award passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Sub Court, Periyakulam, Theni in MCOP
No.323 of 2006.
2.This is a case of fatal accident. The claimants are the wife and
children of the deceased Perumal. The case of the claimants is that on
12.05.2006 at 04.00 p.m the deceased Perumal was proceeding in a
bicycle on Theni-Periyakulam main road and he stopped the bicycle and
went to attend the nature's call. At that time, a Scorpio car bearing
registration No.TN-58-G-5555 came in a high speed and hit against him.
He was immediately taken to the Periyakulam Government Hospital,
where he was declared brought dead. Hence, they are entitled for
compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.
3.The appellant herein resisted the claim petition disputing the
averments made in the claim petition. According to the appellant, the
http://www.judis.nic.in
CMA(MD)No.1195 of 2010
driver of the Scorpio car was coming very slowly and by observing
traffic rules, but the deceased was carelessly crossed the road and thereby
he met with an accident. So, the appellant is not liable to pay
compensation.
4.The claimant examined P.W.2 as eyewitness to the incident. He
deposed in the line of the averments made in the claim petition. The First
Information Report (Ex.P.1), Motor Vehicles Inspector's Report (Ex.P.3)
and Charge Sheet (Ex.P.4) were produced by the claimants to show that
the criminal case was registered against the driver of the Scorpio car. No
contra evidence was produced on behalf of the appellant. Therefore, the
Tribunal, in my considered view, was right in coming to the conclusion
that the driver of the Scorpio car was responsible for the accident.
5.P.W.1 stated that the deceased died at the age of 48 years. Ex.P.2
Postmortem Certificate also shows that he was 48 years old at the
relevant point of time. P.W.1 further stated that the deceased was earning
Rs.5,000/- by doing cattle business, but no documentary evidence was
http://www.judis.nic.in
CMA(MD)No.1195 of 2010
produced to support his case, hence, the Tribunal has fixed income at Rs.
2,250/- per month, after deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenses,
calculated annual income Rs.18,000/- and by applying multiplier '12',
awarded Rs.2,16,000/- for loss of income. In addition, the Tribunal has
awarded Rs.500/- towards transportation; Rs.500/- towards loss of
article; Rs.20000/- towards loss of consortium; Rs.10,000/- towards loss
of love and affection and Rs.2000/- towards funeral expenses. It is seen
that the total amount under the above heads comes to Rs.2,49,000/-.
However, the Tribunal has wrongly awarded Rs.2,48,500/- instead of Rs.
2,49,000/-.
6.Mr.J.Gunaseelanmuthiah, learned Special Government Pleader
would argue that the Tribunal erred in fixing the entire liability on the
appellant without considering the fact that the deceased is the tortfeasor.
It is also contended that the deceased has suddenly crossed the road
without seeing the vehicle moving on the road, fell down and got head
injury and therefore, no compensation can be awarded to his legal heirs.
http://www.judis.nic.in
CMA(MD)No.1195 of 2010
7.Per contra, Mr.M.Jegadeesh Pandian, learned counsel for the
claimants would argue that the Tribunal on proper appreciation of
evidence rendered finding, which does not warrant interference by this
Court.
8.In the matter on hand, as already referred above, the claimants
examined P.W.2 as eyewitness to the incident and also marked documents
to show that the criminal case was registered against the driver of the
offending vehicle. On the contrary, no evidence was adduced by the
appellant in support of their claim. That apart, the claim is also fair and
reasonable and hence, the contention of the learned Special Government
Pleader is rejected and the award of the Tribunal is confirmed.
9.In that view, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed, as
devoid of merits. The appellant is directed to deposit the entire award
amount with accrued interest and costs, less the amount already
deposited, if any, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt
http://www.judis.nic.in
CMA(MD)No.1195 of 2010
of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the claimants are permitted to
withdraw the award amount, less the amount already withdrawn, if any,
as apportioned by the Tribunal together with proportionate interest and
costs. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
10.03.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
skn
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
-cum-Sub Court, Periyakulam, Theni.
2.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in
CMA(MD)No.1195 of 2010
K.KALYANASUNDARAM,J
skn
JUDGMENT MADE IN
C.M.A (MD)No.1195 of 2010
and
M.P(MD)No.2 of 2010
10.03.3021
http://www.judis.nic.in
