Madras High Court
Ramachandran vs Mariyacathrin on 27 March, 2023
C.M.A(MD)No.616 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 27.03.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
C.M.A(MD)No.616 of 2017
1.Ramachandran
2.Rajendran ... Appellants/Claimants
Vs.
1.Mariyacathrin
2.Murugan
3.The Branch Manager,
National Insurance Company Limited,
Office-9, George Building,
1st Floor, Railway Station Road,
Trichy. ... Respondent/1st Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 (1) of
Motor Vehicle Act, to set aside the judgment and decreetal order made in
M.C.O.P.No.122 of 2012 dated 26.03.2014 by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal/Additional sub Court, Kumbakonam and allow the
appeal.
For Appellants : Mr.B.Anandan
For R1 : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
C.M.A(MD)No.616 of 2017
For R3 : Mr.J.S.Murali
JUDGEMENT
The present appeal has been filed by the claimants challenging the
dismissal of the claim petition by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in
M.C.O.P.No.122 of 2012.
2. According to the claimants, their father Arumugam had met
with an accident on 31.03.2011 at about 2.30 p.m. While he was walking
on the road, a Yamaha motor cycle, owned by the 1st respondent and
driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner and he was
seriously injured and he died on 01.04.2011. The claimants sought for
compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.
3. The owner of the vehicle had filed a counter disputing the
ownership of the vehicle and the accident. According to the owner, he
has sold it to the 1st respondent on 20.04.2006 and therefore, he is not
liable to pay any compensation.
4. The insurance company had filed a counter contending that the
involvement of the offending vehicle is doubtful and they have also
questioned the quantum of compensation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.616 of 2017
5. The tribunal after considering the oral and documentary
evidence had arrived at a finding that the claimants have proved the
accident and also the negligence on the part of the rider of the two
wheeler, namely the 2nd respondent. The tribunal further found that the
age of the deceased would be more than 85 years and the claimants have
come out with a false case that their father is 70 years old. The tribunal
further found that the claimants are more than 60 years and 70 years old,
leading an independent life and they will not be entitled to any
compensation and dismissed the claim petition. Challenging the same,
the present appeal has been filed by the claimants.
6. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellants,
the tribunal has categorically found that the deceased is their father and
he had died due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle
belonging to the 2nd respondent. After having arrived at such a finding,
the tribunal ought not to have dismissed the claim petition. He further
contended that even assuming that the claimants were not dependents
upon the deceased father, the compensation amount under the
conventional heads should have been awarded.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.616 of 2017
7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent/insurance company had contended that they have disputed the
involvement of the vehicle and the manner of accident. They have also
disputed the quantum of compensation that was sought for by the
claimants. He further contended that the claimants can never be
considered to be dependents upon their father who was 85 years old at
the time of death. Hence, he prayed for sustaining the award of the
tribunal.
8. I have carefully considered the submissions made on either side.
9. The claimants are admittedly the sons of the deceased.
According to the claimants, their age is 60 years and 55 years at the time
of accident. They have claimed that their deceased father was 70 years
old at the time of the accident. This has created doubt in the minds of the
tribunal and the tribunal has proceeded to dismiss the claim petition on
the ground that the deceased would be at least 85 years old at the time of
accident.
10. The tribunal has further found that one of the claimants is a
retired Teacher and the other claimant is a Tailor and both are having
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.616 of 2017
independent source of income and they were not dependents upon their
deceased father. Considering the above said facts, the claim petition has
been dismissed.
11. Considering the fact that the deceased was about 85 years old
at the time of the accident and the claimants are around 60 years and 55
years at the time of the accident, certainly there cannot be any loss of
income from the death of the deceased person. Therefore, the tribunal
was right in rejecting the claim petition under the head of loss of income.
However, the tribunal was not right in not awarding any amount under
the various conventional heads. Therefore, this Court proceeds to pass an
award as follows:
12. The claimants would be entitled to loss of filial consortium at
the rate of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand) each and totally a sum
of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees Eighty Thousand) and under the head of funeral
expenses, Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) is awarded and
under the head of transport expenses, a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand) is awarded. Totally, a compensation of amount of
Rs.1,15,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Fifteen thousand only) could be
awarded to the claimants.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.616 of 2017
13. In view of the above said deliberations, the claimants will be
jointly entitled to a sum of Rs.1,15,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Fifteen
thousand only) along with 7.5% interest from 26.03.2012 till the date of
realization.
14. Considering the fact that the vehicle is not insured with the 3rd
respondent insurance company, the 1st respondent in the claim petition,
namely Mariyacathrin is liable to pay the above said award amount.
15. In view of the above said observations, this Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal stands allowed. No costs.
27.03.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
gbg
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.616 of 2017
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/
Additional sub Court,
Kumbakonam.
2.The Section Officer,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.616 of 2017
R.VIJAYAKUMAR ,J.
gbg
Order made in
C.M.A(MD)No.616 of 2017
27.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
