The Commissioner Of Police vs Shanmugam
2023 Latest Caselaw 13732 Mad

                                                                            C.M.A No.496 of 2022

                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                               DATED: 11.10.2023

                                                     CORAM

                                         MR.JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE

                                              C.M.A.No.496 of 2022
                                            and C.M.P.No.3652 of 2022

                     The Commissioner of Police,
                     E.V.R Road,
                     Chennai.                                            ... Appellant
                                                     Versus

                     1.Shanmugam

                     2.Divya                                            ... Respondents

                     Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 23 of the
                     Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 seeking to set aside the juddgement
                     and decree passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / III Small
                     Causes Court, Chennai in M.C.O.P.No.2181 of 2017 vide order dated
                     21.11.2019.



                                   For Appellant     : Mr.M.R.Gokul Krishnan
                                                       Additional Government Pleader

                                   For Respondents   : Mr.G.Kartheeban




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                     1/6
                                                                              C.M.A No.496 of 2022



                                                   JUDGMENT

The appellant herein challenges an award passed by the Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal, (III Small Causes Court, Chennai) in M.C.O.P.No.2181

of 2017.

2.In a road accident that took place on 09.12.2016, at around 04.30 a.m.,

at Bharathi Road, Triplicane, certain Vimala was fatally knocked down

by a police patrol vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-01-G-5826. The

deceased was 48 years and she was a milk vendor. Indeed, the accident

itself took place when Vimala was crossing the road for milk vending.

3.The said Vimala died leaving her surviving a son and a daughter who

had approached the Tribunal with their claim. The Tribunal had

determined the monthly income of the deceased notionally at Rs.7,000/-

and added another 10% towards future prospects and deducted 1/3rd

towards her personal expenditure. After applying 11 as the multiplier, it

arrived at a total loss of dependency at Rs.6,77,556/-. It had also awarded

another Rs.50,000/- to both the children towards loss of love and

affection, another Rs.10,000/- towards transport expenditure and

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

C.M.A No.496 of 2022

Rs.30,000/- towards funeral. In all, the Tribunal had awarded

Rs.7,67,556/- payable with interest at 7.5% and directed its

apportionment equally between both the children. This award is now

being appealed.

4.Mr.M.R.Gokul Krishnan, the learned Additional Government Pleader

appearing for the appellant made the following submissions:

(a) The accident had taken place solely due to negligence or lack

of vigilance on the part of the victim while crossing the road; and

(b) The notional income as determined by the Tribunal is on the

higher side.

5.Heard the Mr.G.Kartheeban, the learned counsel for the respondents.

Supporting the award, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted

that the Tribunal had made a categorical finding that the driver of the

offending vehicle was negligent and there is no material to enter a contra

finding. He also submitted that the notional income as determined is

reasonable is not on the lower side.

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

C.M.A No.496 of 2022

6.Appreciating the rival submission, this Court does not find that either

of the two grounds raised by the appellant is adequate enough to carry

conviction, warranting interference with the award passed. The rule of

the thumb in all cases where the pedestrian is involved, the Court has to

evaluate as to who had the last opportunity to avoid an accident. It is

evident from the facts presented before the Tribunal that the driver of the

offending vehicle alone could have the last opportunity to avoid the

accident. Turning to income, this Court finds that the notional income as

fixed by the Tribunal is reasonable.

7.In these circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in this appeal

and the same is liable to be dismissed.

8.The learned counsel for the respondent would now submit that the first

claimant / the first respondent passed away on 24.08.2023 as a bachelor.

This implies that the second respondent being the sole surviving claimant

is entitled to the entire compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal.

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

C.M.A No.496 of 2022

9.The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed. No costs.

Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

11.10.2023 (1/2) Anu Index: Yes/No Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order Neutral Citation: Yes / No

To The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (III Small Causes Court, Chennai)

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

C.M.A No.496 of 2022

N.SESHASAYEE, J.

Anu

C.M.A.No.496 of 2022 and C.M.P.No.3652 of 2022

11.10.2023

(1/2)

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