Madras High Court
The Director Of Fisheries vs Senthamarai on 24 September, 2021
C.M.A.Nos.3186 and 3187 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24.09.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
C.M.A.Nos.3186 and 3187 of 2014
and
MP Nos 1 and 1 of 2014
The Director of Fisheries,
Administrative Office Buildings,
Teynampet,
Chennai. .... Appellant in both
appeals
Versus
Senthamarai .... Respondent in
CMA No.3186 of 2014
Savithiri ... Respondent in
CMA No.3187 of 2014
Prayer in CMA No.3186 of 2014: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed
under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and
decree dated 02.02.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Chidambaram (Sub Court, Chidambaram) made in MCOP No.38 of
2011.
Prayer in CMA No.3187 of 2014 : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed
under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.Nos.3186 and 3187 of 2014
decree dated 02.02.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Chidambaram (Sub Court, Chidambaram) made in MCOP No.145 of
2010.
For Appellant in both appeals : Dr.S. Suriya,
Government Advocate
For Respondent in both appeals: Mr. A. Murugan
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Heard video conference)
These appeals have been filed challenging the common award
dated 02.02.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub
Court, Chidambaram, in MCOP Nos.38 of 2011 and 145 of 2010.
2. Both these appeals pertain to the very same accident which
happened on 27.10.2009 caused by a vehicle owned by the appellant
which resulted in the respective respondents / claimants sustaining
injuries. Since both these appeals arise out of the same accident and
arise out of the same impugned award, these appeals are disposed of by a
common judgment.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.Nos.3186 and 3187 of 2014
3. Respondent in both Civil Miscellaneous Appeals preferred
separate claims in MCOP Nos.38 of 2011 and 145 of 2010 before the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Chidambaram, seeking
compensation for Rs.6,00,000/- and 4,00,000/- respectively for the
injuries sustained by them as a result of the accident. Respondent in
respective CMAs are pedestrians.
4. The Tribunal, by its common award dated 02.02.2012 passed in
MCOP Nos.38 of 2011 and 145 of 2010, directed the appellant to pay
the respondent in CMA No.3186 of 2014 a sum of Rs.1,10,500/- and the
respondent in CMA No.3187 of 2014 a sum of Rs.96,500/- respectively.
5. The details of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under
the impugned award are as follows:
MCOP No.38 of 2011 corresponds to CMA No.3186 of 2014
Heads Amount awarded
by the Tribunal
(Rs.)
Loss of income 4500 x 5 22500
Transportation 10000
Extra nourishment 10000
Medical expenses 4000
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.Nos.3186 and 3187 of 2014
Heads Amount awarded
by the Tribunal
(Rs.)
Attender charges and other 10000
expenses
Pain and suffering 25000
Disability 15000
Rs.1,000/- x 15%
Total 96500
MCOP No.145 of 2010 corresponds to CMA No. of 3187 of 2014
Heads Amount awarded
by the Tribunal
(Rs.)
Loss of income 4500 x 5 22500
Transportation 10000
Extra nourishment 10000
Medical expenses 9000
Attender charges and other 10000
expenses
Pain and suffering 25000
Disability 24000
Rs.1,000/- x 24%
Total 110500
6. The appellant has primarily challenged the impugned award on
the ground that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to
the respective respondents is excessive.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.Nos.3186 and 3187 of 2014
7. Heard Dr.S.Suriya, learned counsel for the appellant and
Mr.A.Murugan, learned counsel for the respondent.
8. This Court has perused and examined the impugned award as
well the materials and evidence available on record before the Tribunal.
9. Before the Tribunal, the respective claimants have filed
documents which were marked as Exhibits and witnesses were also
examined on their side. On the side of the appellant neither any
document was filed nor any witness examined before the Tribunal.
10. The accident happened in the year 2009. The Tribunal has
fixed the notional monthly income of the respective claimants at
Rs.4,500/-, though the respective claimants in their claim petition, have
pleaded that they were Agriculturists and were earning Rs.8,000/-p.m.
This Court after giving due consideration to the year of the accident is of
the considered view that the assessment of the notional monthly income
of the respective claimants at Rs.4,500/- cannot be considered to be
excessive as alleged by the appellant. Both the claimants were injured
and they were hospitalised for a period of one month, which is not
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.Nos.3186 and 3187 of 2014
disputed by the appellant, as seen from the evidence available on record
and only thereafter, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the disability of the
respective claimants and has rightly awarded the compensation. The
overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the respective
respondents/ claimants is a just compensation and cannot be considered
to be excessive as alleged by the appellant / .
11. For the foregoing reasons this Court does not find any infirmity
in the findings of the Tribunal. Therefore, there is no merit in these
appeals and accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
12. The appellant is directed to deposit the entire award amount
awarded by the Tribunal together with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date
of claim petition till the date of realization, less the amount, if any,
already deposited to the credit of respective M.C.O.P. Nos.38 of 2011
and 145 of 2010 respectively, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Sub Court, Chidambaram, within a period of four weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such deposit being
made, the Tribunal is directed to transfer the award amount directly to the
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.Nos.3186 and 3187 of 2014
bank account of the respondent in CMA Nos.3186 and 3187 of 2014,
through RTGS, within a period of two weeks thereafter.
24.09.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
vsi2
To
1. The Sub Judge,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Chidambaram.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R. Section, High Court of Madras,
Chennai – 104.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.Nos.3186 and 3187 of 2014
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
vsi2
C.M.A.Nos.3186 and 3187 of 2014
24.09.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
