Madras High Court
Tamil Nadu State Transport ... vs Mallika on 29 September, 2021
C.M.A.No.2677 of 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29.09.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
C.M.A. No. 2677 of 2009
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
(Salem Division-1) Ltd,
Represented by its Managing Director,
No.12, Ramakrishna Road,
Salem – 636 007.
(Formerly known as Anna Transport
Corporation, Slame-7) ... Appellant
Vs
1. Mallika
2. (Minor) Mano
3. (Minor) Manjukavi
(Respondents 2 and 3 are represented
through their natural guardian and
mother, the first respondent herein)
4. Chinnammal
5. T.Sengamalai ... Respondents
Prayer: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree made in M.C.O.P.No. 151 of
1997 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (I Additional District
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2677 of 2009
Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate), Salem dated 12.02.1999.
For Appellant : Mr. D.Raghu
For Respondent : Not ready in Notice.
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed by the Transport Corporation, challenging
the award dated 12.02.1999, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Salem, in M.C.O.P.No.151 of 1997.
2. The appellant Transport Corporation has primarily challenged the
impugned award, questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal to the respondents/claimants. The respondents/claimants are the
dependants of the deceased Mani, who died on 04.05.1996 as a result of an
accident caused by the bus, owned by the appellant Transport Corporation.
3. The cause of the accident which resulted in the death of Mani has
not been disputed by the respondents before the Tribunal, as seen from the
evidence available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2677 of 2009
4. The only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is
whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in favour of the
respondents/claimants is excessive or not.
5. The deceased Mani was having the educational qualification of
M.A.,B.Ed., and he was working as a Junior Assistant in Panchayat Union Office,
Gangavalli, drawing a salary of Rs.3,013/- (Rupees Three Thousand and Thirteen
only) per month, as seen from the claim petition filed by the
respondents/claimants.
6. Before the Tribunal, the respondents/claimants have filed the pay
certificate of the deceased which has been marked as Ex.A5. The Tribunal has
accepted the same and fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,013/-
(Rupees Three Thousand and Thirteen only) and assessed the loss of dependency
at Rs.3,84,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Eighty Four Thousand only) at the rate of
Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) per month for a period of 16 years.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2677 of 2009
7. The Tribunal has also awarded a compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees
Five Thousand only) towards loss of consortium to the first respondent/first
claimant, who is the wife of the deceased. The Tribunal has also awarded a
compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) towards loss of love and
affection.
8. The Tribunal has also awarded a compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees
Five Thousand only) towards funeral expenses. The total compensation of
Rs.3,99,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Ninety Nine Thousand only) awarded by the
Tribunal under various heads cannot be considered to be excessive as alleged by
the appellant Transport Corporation before the Tribunal.
9. The appellant Transport Corporation has not filed any documents to
disprove the contentions of the respondents/claimants with regard to the age,
avocation, monthly income and educational qualifications of the deceased.
10. Admittedly, no contra evidence has been produced by the appellant
Transport corporation before the Tribunal. Only based on the evidence available
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2677 of 2009
on record, the Tribunal has assessed the compensation payable to the
respondents/claimants.
11. This Court is also of the considered view that the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the impugned order cannot be
considered to be excessive, as alleged by the appellant Transport Corporation.
12. The appeal is of the year 2009 and till date notice has also not been
served on the respondents.
13. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this appeal.
Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
14. The appellant / Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire
award amount together with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of numbering till
the date of realization, less the amount, if any, already deposited to the credit of
M.C.O.P. 151 of 1997 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (I
Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate), Salem within a period of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2677 of 2009
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
bank account of the respondents /claimants, through RTGS, within a period of
two weeks thereafter as per the ratio of apportionment fixed by the Tribunal.
29.09.2021
Index:Yes/No
Speaking Order: Yes/No
rgi
To
1. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
I Additional District Judge cum
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section, High Court, Madras – 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2677 of 2009
ABDUL QUDDHOSE.,J
rgi
C.M.A. No. 2677 of 2009
29.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
