Madras High Court
Premayee @ Prema vs Periasamy on 23 October, 2024
C.M.A.(MD) Nos.94 & 649 of 2010
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 23.10.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
C.M.A.(MD) Nos.94 & 649 of 2010
In C.M.A.(MD)N0.94 of 2010
1.Premayee @ Prema,
2.M.Duraisamy @ Thiyagu. ... Appellants
(A2 was impleaded vide order dated 23.10.2024
in C.M.P.(MD)Nos.12817 to 12819 of 2024)
Vs.
1.Periasamy,
2.Minor Sathiyamoorthy,
(Represented by the guardian and next friend/first respondent)
3.M/s.Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,
Perimilaguparai,
Trichy. ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgement and decree dated 10.04.2007
passed in M.C.O.P.No.2350 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court No.2, Trichy.
For Appellants : Mr.S.Gokul Raj
For Respondents
for R1 & R2: Mr.Jeganathan
for R3 : Mr.A.V.B.Krishnakanth
In C.M.A.(MD)No.649 of 2010
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No. 1 of 10
C.M.A.(MD) Nos.94 & 649 of 2010
The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,
Tiruchirappalli. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Periasamy,
2.Minor Sathiyamoorthy,
(Represented by the guardian and next friend/first respondent)
... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgement and decree dated 10.04.2007
passed in M.C.O.P.No.2350 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court No.2, Trichy.
For Appellant : Mr.A.V.B.Krishnakanth
For Respondents :Mr.Jeganathan
*****
COMMON JUDGMENT
For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their
ranking in C.M.A.(MD)No.94 of 2010.
2. The wife of the deceased had preferred the appeal in C.M.A.
(MD)No.94 of 2010 challenging the award given to the persons, who
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD) Nos.94 & 649 of 2010
claimed to be the brother and the adopted son of the deceased stating that
they are the legal representatives of the deceased; that she had filed an
individual claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.48 of 2000 before the Tribunal at
Kulithalai; that after she came to know that the respondents 1 and 2 had
filed a claim petition before the Tribunal at Trichy, she filed a Transfer
Tr.C.M.P.No.17122 of 2002 before this Court seeking for transfer of the
claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.48 of 2000 pending on the file of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kulithalai filed by her to be transferred to the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Trichy to be tried along with
M.C.O.P.No.2946 of 2001 filed by the respondents 1 and 2, which was
renumbered as M.C.O.P.No.2350 of 2001 on the file of the Additional
District Court, Fast Track Court No.2, Trichy; that since the claim petition
was not transferred to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Trichy, the
Tribunal had only considered the claim petition filed by the respondents 1
and 2 and awarded compensation to them, which is erroneous.
3. The Transport Corporation has preferred C.M.A.(MD)No.649
of 2010 seeking a reduction of the quantum of compensation.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD) Nos.94 & 649 of 2010
4. The facts leading to the filing of these appeals are as follows:
a. The respondents 1 and 2 filed a claim petition before the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Trichy, in M.C.O.PNo.2946 of 2001, which
was subsequently transferred to the Additional District Court, Fast Track
Court No.2, Trichy and renumbered as M.C.O.P.No.2350 of 2001.
b. The first appellant/since deceased had earlier filed a claim
petition in M.C.O.P. No.48 of 2000 before the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal at Kulithalai, which was transferred to the III Additional Sub
Court, Trichy and renumbered as M.C.O.P.No.1 of 2004. She filed
Tr.C.M.P.No.17122/2022 before this Court. This Court by the order, dated
30.09.2003, in the said transfer petition, had directed both the claim
petitions to be decided together. However, it appears that the claim
petition filed by respondents 1 and 2 was decided separately.
The said award is now under challenge in C.M.A.(MD).No.94 of 2010.
The claim petition filed by the appellant in M.C.O.P.No.1 of 2004 on the
file of the III Additional Sub Court, Trichy, it appears was dismissed for
default on 30.06.2011.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that since the
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD) Nos.94 & 649 of 2010
Tribunal had tried the claim petition filed by the respondents 1 and 2 in
M.C.O.P.No.2350 of 2001 separately, contrary to the directions of this
Court to try it along with M.C.O.P.No.1 of 2004, the award is liable to be
set aside.
6. The learned counsel for the transport corporation/third
respondent, who filed the appeal in C.M.A.(MD)No.649 of 2010
challenging the quantum of compensation, submitted that the quantum is
excessive inasmuch as the notional income fixed by the Tribunal is at
Rs.3,000/- p.m. is excessive and therefore, the compensation has to be
reduced.
7. The findings on negligence and liability are not in dispute.
Hence, the facts leading to the filing of the claim petition filed by the first
appellant and the respondents 1 and 2 are unnecessary for the disposal of
these appeals.
8. The points for consideration in the instant appeal are as follows:
‘a. Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal
is just and reasonable?
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD) Nos.94 & 649 of 2010
b. Whether the appellant in C.M.A.No.94 of 2010 or the
respondents 1 and 2 would be entitled to the compensation or both?’
9. As regards the first question, it is seen from the award of the
Tribunal that the deceased was working as a vegetable vendor. The first
respondent, the brother of the deceased, who had filed the claim petition
in M.C.O.P.No.2350 of 2001, was examined as P.W.1 to show that he was
earning Rs.6,000/- p.m. However, no documentary proof had been
produced either to prove his avocation or the income of the deceased. The
Tribunal, therefore, fixed the monthly income of Rs.3,000/- p.m. The
appellants also were unable to point out any infirmity in the notional
income fixed by the Tribunal for an accident that took place in the year
2000. The Tribunal had awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,49,000/-.
Considering the year of the accident, this Court is of the view that the
quantum of compensation is reasonable and no interference is called for.
Accordingly, point No.1 is answered. Consequently, the appeal filed by
the third respondent/Transport Corporation seeking reduction of
compensation is dismissed.
10. As regards the second question, it is seen that the respondents 1
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD) Nos.94 & 649 of 2010
and 2 before the Tribunal had established that the first respondent is the
brother and the second respondent is the adopted minor son of the
deceased. They had filed Ex.P3/Invitation of Ear-boring Ceremony of the
second respondent and Ex.P4/ration card to show that the deceased was
living with them. Ex.P5 would show that they had conducted the funeral
of the deceased and had spent substantially for the same. Considering the
above fact, the Tribunal held that the second respondent is the adopted
son. At the same time, there is no dispute that the first appellant (since
deceased) was the wife of the deceased. The only submission of the
learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 is that the first appellant had not
taken care of the deceased and she had deserted the deceased long before
his death. In view of the admitted fact that the first appellant/Premayee is
the wife, this Court is of the view that she would certainly be entitled to a
share in the compensation and consequently, her legal heir, who was
impleaded on her death, would be entitled to a share. Considering the fact
that the deceased was living with the respondents 1 and 2, this Court is of
the view that 1/3 of the compensation can be apportioned to the legal heir
of the first appellant, (i.e.,) the second appellant. A sum of Rs.50,000/-
can be paid to the first respondent and the remaining compensation can be
apportioned to the second respondent, who is the adopted son of the
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD) Nos.94 & 649 of 2010
deceased.
11. The third respondent/Transport Corporation shall deposit the
compensation amount of Rs.2,49,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Forty Nine
Thousand only) with interest at 7.5% p.a from the date of claim petition
till the date of realisation and costs, less the amount already withdrawn, if
any, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order.
12. On such deposit, the second appellant shall be entitled to
Rs.82,170/- (33%), the first respondent would be entitled to Rs.50,000/-
and the second respondent would be entitled to the remaining amount of
Rs.1,16,830/- with proportionate interest and costs, less the amount
already withdrawn, if any. The claimants are permitted to withdraw their
share by filing a suitable application before the Tribunal.
13. The second respondent was a minor when the claim petition was
filed in 2001. He would have attained majority now. Hence, he is directed
to file an appropriate application for recording himself as a major and to
withdraw his share.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD) Nos.94 & 649 of 2010
14. In the result, C.M.A.(MD)No.94 of 2010 is partly allowed and
C.M.A.(MD)No.649 of 2010 is dismissed. No costs.
23.10.2024
Index: Yes/ No (2/2)
NCC: Yes / No
Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order
apd
To:
1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court No.2, Trichy.
2. The III Additional Sub Court, Trichy.
3.The Record Keeper,
V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
apd
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD) Nos.94 & 649 of 2010
C.M.A.(MD) Nos.94 & 649 of 2010
23.10.2024
(2/2)
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
