Madras High Court
Karolin vs A.Shanmugavel on 23 November, 2023
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M. Dhandapani
C.M.A.No.4062 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 23.11.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI
C.M.A.No.4062 of 2019
1.Karolin
2.Davidson ... Appellants
Vs.
1.A.Shanmugavel
2.S.P.Sakthivel
3.The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
By its The Branch Manager,
No.54, R.V.K. Building, 1st Floor,
Udumelpet,
Tiruppur District. ... Respondents
Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the fair order and award passed in
M.C.O.P.No.414 of 2013 dated 10.01.2018 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Sathyamangalam on the ground of
limiting the liability 75 : 25 on the appellants, further restricting the
amount to Rs.15,00,000/- by holding that the appellants have only asked
for Rs.15,00,000/- and praying to set aside the same.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.4062 of 2019
For Appellants : Mr.A.Sundaravadhanan
For Respondents : Mr.M.N.Balakrishnan [R1]
No appearance [R2]
Mr.R.Sivakumar [R3]
*****
JUDGEMENT
Challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Sub Court), Sathyamangalam in M.C.O.P.No.414 of 2013 dated
10.01.2018 on the ground of limiting the liability 75 : 25 on the appellants,
further restricting the amount to Rs.15,00,000/- by holding that the
appellants have only asked for Rs.15,00,000/-, the appellants have filed the
present appeal.
2. It is the case of the claimants that, on 17.05.2012, when the
deceased along with his neighbour was travelling in the two wheeler
bearing Reg.No.TN 41 Y 8844 at about 09.45 p.m., at that time, the first
respondent had driven the vehicle bearing Reg.No.TN 39 J 8649 in a rash
and negligent manner, without following the rules of the road, dashed
against the vehicle driven by the deceased, due to which, the deceased
sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot, resulting in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
registration of Crime No.140 of 2002. Therefore, claiming compensation at
the hands of the third respondent/the insurer of the offending vehicle, the
claim petition has been preferred by the claimants.
3. Before the Tribunal, the claimants have examined two witnesses
viz., P.W.1 and P.W.2 and marked 11 documents viz., Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11.
No witnesses were examined nor any documents were marked on the side
of the respondents. The Tribunal appreciating the oral and documentary
evidence held that, while fastening the liability and negligence of 75% on
the offending vehicle, fastened the negligence and liability to the extent of
25% on the deceased and while arrived at a compensation of
Rs.30,63,808/- and computed 75% payable by the third respondent/insurer
to the tune of Rs.22,97,856/-. However, directed the payment of award
only in a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as the claimants had claimed only a sum
of Rs.15,00,000/- and had paid court fee only to the said extent.
Challenging the said reduced compensation, the present appeal has been
filed by the claimants.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants
submitted that, when the Tribunal has arrived at the compensation payable
at the hands of the third respondent/insurance company at Rs.22,97,856/-
though the claimants had prayed only for a compensation of
Rs.15,00,000/-, the Tribunal ought not to have restricted the claim only to
Rs.15,00,000/- but should have ordered payment of Rs.22,97,856/- and
should have directed the claimants to pay the court fee to the extent of the
additional compensation awarded by the Tribunal. However, restricting the
claim only to the extent of the court fee paid is erroneous. Therefore, he
prays that the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal may be
ordered by this Court.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the third
respondent/insurance company submitted that, the fixation of liability at
75% : 25% against the offending vehicle and the deceased is not in
dispute. However, in view of the fact that the claimants had restricted their
claim only to a sum of Rs.15,00,000/-, the Tribunal has directed the third
respondent/ insurance company to pay the said sum, which cannot be held
to be erroneous. Therefore, he prays that no interference is warranted.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent and the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent and perused the
materials available on record.
7. The only issue which arises for consideration in the present
appeal is whether the compensation computed by the Tribunal ought to be
awarded or is it only the claim which is made by the claimants that is to be
awarded.
8. There could no contra view of the fact that the Motor Vehicles
Act is a benevolent legislation, which is provided for extending monitory
relief to the aggrieved family due to the loss of its breadwinner. In the case
on hand, the deceased is the breadwinner of the family, whose untimely
death has resulted in the loss of earnings to the claimants. The claimants
have made a claim for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- by paying the necessary
court fee. It is to be pointed out that the claimants would not be aware of
the manner, in which the compensation is computed by the Tribunal and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
an award is passed. Therefore, the claim has been made by the claimants
to that extent. However, the claimants have not anywhere restricted their
claim only to the said sum of Rs.15,00,000/-. While analyzing the oral and
documentary materials available on record and arriving at a compensation
of Rs.30,63,808/-, of which, 75% has to be borne by the third
respondent/insurance company, which works out to a sum of
Rs.22,97,856/-, necessarily the proper approach of the Tribunal ought to
have been to direct the third respondent/insurance company to deposit the
said sum and further, to direct the claimants to pay the court fee in respect
of the enhanced portion of compensation wherein after the amount could
be realized to the credit of the claimants. However, without doing so and in
the absence of the claimants restricting their claim to Rs.15,00,000/-, it is
not right on the part of the Tribunal to restrict the claim to Rs.15,00,000/-,
though it had awarded a sum of Rs.22,97,856/- being the 75% payable by
the third respondent/insurance company. Therefore, while the
compensation computed by the Tribunal is just and proper, however, the
order to the extent the Tribunal has restricted the claim only to a sum of
Rs.15,00,000/- though it has awarded a sum of Rs.22,97,856/- is
erroneous and the same deserves to be interfered with.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9. Accordingly, for the reasons aforesaid, the Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal is allowed and the compensation as originally quantified by the
Tribunal of Rs.22,97,856/- is ordered to be paid by the third
respondent/insurance company. The third respondent/insurance company
is directed to deposit the said amount to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.414 of
2013 along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of
claim petition till the date of deposit and costs as awarded by the Tribunal,
less, the amount, if any already deposited, within a period of four (4)
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit
being made, the Tribunal is directed to transfer the award amount as per
the apportionment, directly to the bank account of the appellants/claimants
through RTGS within a period of two (2) weeks thereafter upon
production of proof with regard to payment of requisite Court fee on the
compensation. There shall be no order as to costs in the present appeal.
23.11.2023
Index : Yes / No
Speaking order / Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation Case : Yes / No
sp
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
sp
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Sathyamangalam.
2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.
23.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
