Madras High Court
Malika vs Essakiammal on 27 January, 2022
C.M.A.(MD).No.963 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATE : 27.01.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
C.M.A.(MD).No.963 of 2017
1.Malika
2.Shanthi
3.Pitchammal ...Appellants/Claimants
Vs.
1.Essakiammal
2.TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd.,
Through its Branch Manager,
Peninsula Business Park,
Tower -A, 15th Floor,
Ganpatrao Kadam Marg,
Off.Senapati Bapal Marg,
Lower Parel,
Mumbai – 400 013.
3.Venkatachalam
4.Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd.,
Through its Branch Manager,
E-8, RIICO Industrial Area,
Sitpura, Jaipur,
Rajasthan – 302 022. ...Respondents/Respondents
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.963 of 2017
PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, to allow this appeal and enhance the award amount in
M.C.O.P.No.5 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, I
Additional District Court, Tirunelveli, dated 12.04.2016.
For Appellants :Mr.T.Selvakumaran
For R1 – R3 :No Appearance
For R2 :Mr.B.Vijaykarthikeyan
For R4 :Mr.V.Balaji
for Mr.D.Sivaraman
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed to enhance the award
amount awarded in M.C.O.P.No.5 of 2014, dated 12.04.2016, passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/I Additional District Court, Tirunelveli.
2.It is a case of fatal accident, which took place on 12.11.2013 at about
5.15 a.m., the deceased Ramakrishnan was driving the lorry bearing
Registration No.TN-72-AB-4887 belonging to the third respondent insured
with the fourth respondent towards Mandala Manickam at Tiruchuli road,
behind the first respondent's lorry bearing Registration No.TN-72-AF-1118
belonging to the first respondent insured with the second respondent. While
the first respondent's lorry driver had applied sudden break, the back side of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.963 of 2017
the lorry dashed against the cabin of the deceased lorry. Due to the impact of
which, the deceased sustained grievous injury and died on 13.11.2013.
3.The claimants have filed a petition in M.C.O.P.No.5 of 2014 on the
file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, I Additional District Court,
Tirunelveli, seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-.
4.Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants, two witnesses were
examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and nine documents were marked as Exs.P.1 to
P.9. On the side of the second respondent, two witnesses were examined as
R.W.1 and R.W.2 and six documents were marked as Ex.R1 to Ex.R6 and on
the side of the fourth respondent, no one was examined and no document was
marked.
5.The Tribunal, after considering the pleadings, oral and documentary
evidences and the arguments of the counsel for the claimant and the
respondent and also on appreciating the evidences on record, held that the
accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the
deceased Ramakrishnan and directed the fourth respondent/Sriram General
Insurance Company Ltd., to pay a sum of Rs.6,59,750/- as compensation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.963 of 2017
6.Heard on either side and perused the material documents available on
record.
7.The learned counsel for the appellants contended that since the
deceased was working as a heavy vehicle driver, the Tribunal has fixed a sum
of Rs.10,000/- as monthly income is very low and the Tribunal did not award
any amount towards ''future prospectus'' of the deceased. Hence, he seeks
enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
8.A perusal of records, it shows that the Tribunal has fixed Rs.10,000/-
towards monthly income of the deceased. At the time of accident, the
deceased was a heavy vehicle driver, but the claimants did not produce any
documents to prove the income of the deceased. The accident was occurred
in the year 2013. As per Minimum Wages Act, 1948, only Rs.280/- has to be
fixed per day for heavy vehicle driver. Without any documents filed to prove
the monthly income of the deceased, the Tribunal has fixed Rs.10,000/- as
monthly income fixed by the Tribunal is reasonable.
9.Considering all the materials on record in entirety, this court is of the
view that there is no error to interfere with the award of the Tribunal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.963 of 2017
10.In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. The
award amount of Rs.6,59,750/- granted by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, I Additional District Court, Tirunelveli in M.C.O.P.No.5 of 2014 ,
dated 12.04.2016, is hereby confirmed. No Costs.
27.01.2022
Index :Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
vsd
Note : (i) Issue Order Copy on 03.02.2022
(ii) In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official
purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented
is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the
advocate/litigant concerned.
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
I Additional District Court, Tirunelveli
2.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.963 of 2017
S.ANANTHI, J.
vsd
Judgment made in
C.M.A.(MD).No.963 of 2017
27.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
