The Collector Of Vellore District vs Valli
2023 Latest Caselaw 4525 Mad

                                                                       C.M.A.No.1681 of 2018


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED : 20.04.2023

                                                      CORAM:

                                    THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI

                                              C.M.A.No.1681 of 2018
                                                        &
                                              C.M.P.No.13177 of 2018

                    1.The Collector of Vellore District
                    Sathuvachari, Vellore-632 009

                    2.The Director of Rural Development
                    Panagal building
                    Saidapet, Chennai-600 015                                ... Appellants

                                                          Vs.

                    1.Valli

                    2.Dhanasekaran

                    3.Minor Anandan

                    4.Minor Nithiya
                    (minor respondents 3 and 4
                    are represented by their next
                    friend Mother Valli)

                    5. Panjalai                                        ... Respondents


                    1/8



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                  C.M.A.No.1681 of 2018


                    PRAYER: Appeal filed under Sec. 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against

                    the judgment and decree dated 27.03.2012 made in M.C.O.P.No.303 of 2008

                    on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court) Tirupattur.

                                    For Appellants     : Mr.C.Sathish, Govt. Advocate

                                    For Respondents : Mr.F.Terry Chella Raja

                                                       JUDGMENT

The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred at the instance of the

Collector of Vellore and Director of Rural Development, Chennai, against the

judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.303 of 2008 dated 27.03.2012

on the file of the Sub Judge, Thirupattur, awarding a sum of Rs.6,07,000/- as

compensation to the claimants in the said M.C.O.P.

2. Claimants being wife, children and mother of the deceased, one

Chakravarthi, approached the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal seeking

compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- for the death of the said Chakravarthi in a

road accident that occurred on 05.04.2008.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.1681 of 2018

3. The case of the claimants before the Tribunal was that on the fateful

day, the jeep belonging to the respondents before the Tribunal, the appellants

herein was driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the

deceased Chakravarthi who was riding his TVS Champ motor cycle in the

same direction. The first appellant filed a counter before the Tribunal stating

that the FIR which was given by the son of the deceased was sufficient to

deny compensation since even in the FIR, it was mentioned that the deceased

had suddenly crossed the road. The 1st respondent also contended that its

driver had also been acquitted in the criminal case. In any event, according to

the 1st respondent the claim of Rs.7,00,000/- was arbitrary and exorbitant.

4. Before the Tribunal, 1st claimant, wife of the deceased Chakravarthi,

examined herself as P.W.1 and one Rathinam was examined as P.W.2.

Exs.P1 to P9 were marked on the side of the claimants. On the side of the

respondents R.W.1-Muniraj and R.W.2-Ganapathi were examined. Ex.R1

was marked on the side of the respondents.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.1681 of 2018

5. The Tribunal, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence,

found that the vehicle of the respondents was driven in a rash and negligent

manner and consequently there was no negligence on the part of the deceased

Chakravarthi.

6. The Tribunal took into account Ex.P.8 and fixed the notional income

of Rs.150/- per day adopting a multiplier of 14. The Tribunal arrived at the

loss of income at Rs.5,67,000/-. Additionally, the Tribunal awarded

Rs.15,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of

consortium, Rs.5,000/- towards transportation expenses and Rs.5,000/-

towards funeral expenses. In all a sum of Rs.6,07,000/- was awarded as total

compensation.

7. Aggrieved by the said award of the Tribunal, the respondents in the

claim petition, as appellants, are before this Court.

8. The grounds of challenge are that the Trial Court failed to appreciate

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.1681 of 2018

the vital fact that the son of the deceased himself has given the FIR to the

Police and according to the FIR the entire fault was only on the deceased and

not on the driver of the appellants. The other main ground raised by the

appellants is that the claimants failed to prove the income and age of the

deceased by adducing sufficient acceptable documentary evidence and the

Tribunal erred in passing an award despite the claimants not letting in even

basic required evidence in support of their claim.

9. Heard Mr.C.Sathish, learned Government Advocate appearing for

the appellants and Mr.F.Terry Chella Raja, learned counsel for the

respondents.

10. This Court has gone through the oral and documentary evidence on

record. The FIR lodged by the son of the deceased is also carefully perused.

The Tribunal, has at great length discussed the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2

as well as R.W.1 who was said to have witnessed the accident in person. The

Tribunal also took into account the order passed in criminal case viz., 210 of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.1681 of 2018

2008, which was exhibited as R1. The Tribunal has weighed the oral evidence

of P.W.2 as against the evidence of R.W.2 and found that there was no

negligence on the part of the deceased and came to the conclusion that the

evidence of P.W.2 was more probable and believable and accepted his version

as against the evidence of R.W.2 in coming to a conclusion that negligence

was only on the part of the appellants' jeep.

11. This Court finds that the Tribunal has applied its mind to the

available oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties in

coming to the conclusion that there is no negligence on the part of the

deceased and consequently fixed the liability on the appellants. This finding

does not warrant any interference.

12. Even in so far as fixing the compensation, the Tribunal has

adopted a proper and judicial approach, based on oral and documentary

evidence before it. The Tribunal has fixed a sum of Rs.150/- per day as

notional income of the deceased who was admittedly employed as a painter.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.1681 of 2018

Considering that the accident had occurred in the year 2008, this Court feels

that the sum of Rs.150/- per day in other words Rs.4500/- per month is

reasonable and does not call for any interference. The Tribunal has also

rightly deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses/contribution of the

deceased in arriving at the compensation payable to the claimants.

13. This Court does not find any error or infirmity in the findings of the

Tribunal, warranting interference by this Court in Appeal. In fine, the Civil

Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected

miscellaneous petition is closed.

20.04.2023.

Internet:Yes Index:Yes/No kpr

To

1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court) Tirupattur.

2.The Section Officer V.R.Section High Court, Madras

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.1681 of 2018

P.B.BALAJI, J., kpr

C.M.A.No.1681 of 2018

20.04.2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis