Poongodi vs Manoharan
2023 Latest Caselaw 12286 Mad

                                                                          C.M.A.No.2115 of 2023

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 DATED: 12.09.2023

                                                       CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

                                                C.M.A.No.2115 of 2023

                   1.Poongodi
                   2.Minor Karthikeyan
                   3.Minor Monish
                   4.Arukkani
                   5.Perumal
                   (The 2nd & 3rd minor appellants are rep. by their
                   Next friend/guardian/mother Poongodi)                         ... Appellants
                                                          Vs.
                   1.Manoharan

                   2.The National Insurance Co., Ltd.,
                     2nd Floor, 81-A, North Car Street,
                     Tiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District.

                   3.The National Insurance Co., Ltd.,
                     Parimalam Complex, 2nd Floor,
                     EVN Road, Erode - 638 011.                               ... Respondents
                   PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
                   Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree in M.C.O.P.No.01 of
                   2018, dated 02.06.2020, on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims
                   Tribunal/Special District Judge, Erode.
                                     For Appellants       : Mr.T.S.Arthanareeswaran
                                     For Respondents      : R1 – Exparte
                                                            Mr.D.Bhaskaran for R2

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                   1/8
                                                                              C.M.A.No.2115 of 2023

                                                     JUDGMENT

The claimants have filed the instant appeal seeking enhancement of

compensation.

2.The appellants filed the claim petition stating that on 15.08.2017 at

about 09.05 A.M., when the deceased was riding his Two-wheeler, the

offending vehicle insured with the second respondent herein came in a rash

and negligent manner and caused the accident which resulted in fatal

injuries to the deceased.

3.The first respondent remained exparte before the Tribunal.

4.The second respondent resisted the claim petition stating that the

accident took place only due to the negligence of the deceased and in any

case, the claim made by the appellants/claimants is excessive and prayed for

dismissal of the claim petition.

5.Before the Tribunal, the appellants examined 4 witnesses as P.W.1

to P.W.4 and marked 19 documents as Exhibits P1 to P19. On the side of

the respondents, 2 witnesses were examined as R.W.1 and R.W.2 and 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.No.2115 of 2023

documents were marked as Exhibits R1 to R3.

6.The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence,

determined the compensation payable by the second respondent as

Rs.21,96,000/-. However, since the appellants restricted the claim to

Rs.10,00,000/-, awarded a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.

7.The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal

ought to have awarded to Rs.21,96,000/- as determined by it as

compensation and ought not to have restricted to Rs.10,00,000/-, as the

Tribunal has to award a just and reasonable compensation. The learned

counsel for the appellants relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Meena Devi vs. Nunu Chand Mahto @ Nemchand Mahto & Ors.

reported in 2022 Live Law (SC) 841, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court

had held in a similar case, that less valuation made in the claim petition

would not be an impediment to award just compensation.

8.Since the first respondent remained exparte before the Tribunal, the

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

C.M.A.No.2115 of 2023

learned counsel for the appellants made an endorsement that notice to the

first respondent may be dispensed with. Hence, notice to the first

respondent is dispensed with.

9.The learned counsel for the second respondent per contra submitted

that in view of the restriction of the claim made by the appellants, the

Tribunal was right in awarding the compensation, no interference is called

for and hence prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

10.Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the

respondents and perused the materials available on record.

11.The only question involved in this appeal is whether the Tribunal

was right in awarding Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation merely because the

appellants have restricted their claim to Rs.10,00,000/-.

12.On perusal of the award of the Tribunal, it is seen that the Tribunal

had determined the compensation payable to the appellants as

Rs.21,96,000/-. It is trite law that the Tribunal has to award just and

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

C.M.A.No.2115 of 2023

reasonable compensation notwithstanding the claim made by the claimants.

This position of law has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 801. The relevant paragraph is

extracted hereunder for better understanding:

14.At this stage, it is necessary to clarify that as

per the decision of a Three-Judge Bench of this Court in

Nagappa vs. Gurdayal Singh and others (2003) 2 SCC

274, it was observed that under the MV Act, there is no

restriction that the Tribunal/Court ought to award 'just'

compensation which is reasonable in the facts relying

upon the evidence produced on record. Therefore, less

valuation, if any, made in the Claim Petition would not

be impediment to award just compensation exceeding the

claimed amount.

13.Therefore, in view of the above settled position of law, this Court

is of the view that the award of the Tribunal granting Rs.10,00,000/- as

compensation to the appellants is liable to be set aside. The appellants are

entitled to Rs.21,96,000/- as determined by Tribunal. The direction to the

second respondent pay the compensation at the first instance and then https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.No.2115 of 2023

recover it from the first respondent is confirmed.

14.With the above modification, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is

allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.10,00,000/- is

hereby enhanced to Rs.21,96,000/- together with interest at 7.5% per annum

(excluding the default period, if any) from the date of petition till the date

of deposit. No costs.

15.The second respondent is directed to deposit the award amount,

now determined by this Court, less the amount already deposited, if any,

within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of a receipt of a copy of this

judgment. On such deposit, the first appellant shall be entitled to

Rs.12,00,000/-, the second and third appellants shall be entitled to

Rs.4,00,000/- each, the fourth and fifth appellants shall be entitled to

Rs.98,000/- each. The appellants 1, 4 & 5 are permitted to withdraw their

share of the award amount along with proportionate interest and costs. The

share of the minor appellants 2 & 3 are directed to be deposited in any one

of the Nationalised Bank till the minors attain majority. The 1st appellant

mother of the minors is permitted to withdraw the accrued interest once in 3

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

C.M.A.No.2115 of 2023

months. The appellants are directed to pay the necessary Court Fee, if any,

on the enhanced award amount.

12.09.2023

Index:Yes/No Speaking Order :Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes/No pam/gvn

To

1.The Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal/ Special District Judge, Erode.

2.The Section Officer, VR Section, Madras High Court.

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

C.M.A.No.2115 of 2023

SUNDER MOHAN, J.

gvn

C.M.A.No.2115 of 2023

12.09.2023

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