Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs Mumtaj on 30 June, 2023
C.M.A.No.360 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.06.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHACHAKRAVARTHY
C.M.A.No.360 of 2021
and
C.M.P.No.2410 of 2021
The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation (Kumbakonam ) Ltd.,
Railway Station New Road,
Kumbakonam- 612 001 ... Appellant
Vs.
1. Mumtaj
W/o Jaheer Hussain
2. Mohamed Fizal,
S/o Jaheer Hussain
3. Najumudeen,
S/o Jaheer Hussain
4. Sabeetha Bee,
W/o Abdul Wahab ...Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 28.07.2020
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1/6
C.M.A.No.360 of 2023
made in M.C.O.P.No.83 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal/ Special Sub Judge, Cuddalore.
For Appellant : Mr.D.Raghu
For Respondent : Mrs.Ramya V.Rao
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company
aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal dated 28.07.2020, in and by
which, in respect of the claim of compensation of a fatal accident, a total
compensation of Rs.40,34,500/- was awarded by the Tribunal. Aggrieved
by the quantum, the appellant Corporation is before this Court.
2. Heard Mr.D.Raghu, learned counsel for the appellant and
Mrs.Ramya V.Rao, learned counsel for the respondent.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that in this case,
the income is taken at Rs.25,000/- on the basis of the assessment and
other particulars of one Mumtaz Trading and Industries. Admittedly, all
the said documents produced before the Tribunal in Exs.P8 to P17,
stood in the name of the first claimant/wife and not the
deceased/husband. Inspite of specific cross examination, they were not
able to produce any document to connect the husband with the said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 2/6
C.M.A.No.360 of 2023
concern or that the husband is working in any capacity or that he was
managing the affairs of the said concern. Therefore, on the mere basis of
the documents relating to Mumtaz Trading and Industries, the income
was fixed. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal erred in taking the said
income and only a notional income could have been taken and therefore,
the award needs interference.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
claimants would submit that inspite of specific cross examination by the
appellant Insurance Company, P.W.1 had specifically denied that her
husband was working only as a mechanic and not running Mumtaz
Trading and Industries. Between the husband and wife, the concern was
run in the name of the wife but however, the same was managed only by
the deceased/husband. From the very answer in the cross examination
that after his death, Mumtaz Trade and Industries is not being run would
itself go to show that the concern which was in the business of extracting
oil from cashewnuts was being run only by the deceased and therefore,
the said income, that too, being only a reasonable sum of Rs.25,000/- was
rightly taken by the Tribunal and the quantum is arrived.
5. We have considered the rival submissions made and perused the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 3/6
C.M.A.No.360 of 2023
material records of the case. We have specifically gone through the cross
examination of P.W.1 Mumtaz also. We find force in the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the respondent.
6. The cross examination of P.W.1 has clearly brought out that
Mumtaz Trading and Industrial was no more running after the death of
the first claimant's husband. Secondly, she has categorically denied that
her husband was only working as a mechanic and answered positively
that it was her husband who was running the entire business. Thirdly, we
also find that in the teeth of the said categorical case by P.W.1/ wife that
the business is run only by the husband and the evidence let in by them,
when no contrary evidence has been let in to disprove the same, we hold
that the Tribunal was right in holding that the deceased was only
running the said business and accordingly, taking the said business as the
income of the deceased.
7. In that view of the matter, we do not find any error in the award
of the Tribunal in taking the monthly income at Rs.25,000/-. Therefore,
the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is without any merits. Accordingly, the
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. The balance compensation, if
any, to be deposited within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 4/6
C.M.A.No.360 of 2023
of a copy of this order and the claimants are permitted to withdraw their
entire sum as apportioned by the Tribunal. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(J.N.B,J.) (D.B.C, J.)
Index : Yes / No 30.06.2023
Internet : Yes
vsi
To
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/
Special Sub Judge,
Cuddalore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 5/6
C.M.A.No.360 of 2023
J. NISHA BANU, J.
and
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY,J.
vsi
C.M.A.No.360 of 2021
30.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 6/6
