Madras High Court
Sivagami vs V.Pandiyan on 8 June, 2023
C.M.A.No.63 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 08.06.2023
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA
CMA.No. 63 of 2023
T.Pauljosh (Since died)
1.Sivagami
2.Jenefermercy Carolina
3.Thirunavukarasu
...Appellants
Vs.
1.V.Pandiyan
2.The National Insurance Company Limited,
Motor TP Hub, Regina Mansion,
No.46, 3rd Floor, Moore Street,
Chennai- 600 001.
...Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the Judgment and Decree passed in
M.C.O.P.No.2534 of 2016 dated 08.11.2019 on the file of Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, (V Small Causes Court), Chennai.
For Appellants : K.Varadha Kamaraj
For R-1 : No appearance
For R-2 : Mr.J.Chandran
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
C.M.A.No.63 of 2022
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed challenging the Award and Decree passed in
M.C.O.P.No.2534 of 2016 dated 08.11.2019 on the file of Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, (V Small Causes Court), Chennai.
2. The appeal is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of
compensation.
The claim petition is filed by the widow, daughter and the father of the
deceased Pauljosh, who died in the motor accident which occurred on
26.01.2016, claiming a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- as compensation.
3. The accident, negligence and liability are not disputed. The only issue
to be decided in the appeal is quantum of compensation to be paid to the
appellants.
4. It is seen that the deceased was aged 62 years at the time of accident
and was running a D.TP. xerox, Telecom and Stationery shop under the name
and style of "Jeneffer Enterprises" and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.63 of 2022
5. Before the Claims Tribunal, PAN card, copy of Aadhar and Bank A/c
pass book of the deceased were filed in support of the income of Rs.20,000/-
per month. The Claims Tribunal assessed the income notionally at Rs.15,000/-
per month and awarded Rs.8,40,000/- towards loss of dependency.
6. The only point raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that
the notional income fixed by the Claims Tribunal was very meagre and the
same deserved to be enhanced or not.
7. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent on the other hand, submits
that the Award of the Claims Tribunal is just, fair and reasonable and did not
call for any interference by this Court.
8. I have heard both the learned counsels and have perused the materials
placed on record.
9. I find that, in the absence of any evidence like the license of the
concerned Authority to run the shop, the Claims Tribunal rightly assessed the
income at Rs.15,000/- per month and therefore the same is confirmed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.63 of 2022
10. The learned counsel for the appellants fairly submitted that the award
towards various heads were reasonable and therefore the same are not disputed.
In the light of the above discussion, I am of the view that the appeal is
devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. The impugned Award passed by the
Claims Tribunal is confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs.
08.06.2023
dsn
Index: Yes/No
Speaking Order: Yes/No
Neutral citation: Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.63 of 2022
To
1. The V Judge,
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Chennai.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.63 of 2022
N.MALA.J.,
dsn
C.M.A.No.63 of 2022
08.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
