Madras High Court
Divisional Manager vs Uma Majeswari on 5 September, 2024
C.M.A.(MD)No.398 of 2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 05.09.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
C.M.A(MD)No.398 of 2013
and M.P(MD)Nos.3 of 2013
Divisional Manager,
New India Assurance Co, Ltd.,
858 Market Road,
Thajavur ... Appellant/2nd Respondent
Vs.
1.Uma Majeswari
2.Swaminathan ...Respondents 1 & 2/Petitioners
3.K.Manimala ...3rd Respondent/1st Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and award dated
12.10.2011passed in M.C.O.P.No.127 of 2009 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District and Sessions Court
(Special Court under Essential Commodities Act), Thanjavur.
For Appellant : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar
For R1 & R3 : No appearance
JUDGMENT
The appeal challenges the finding on negligence and the quantum
of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. The respondents 1 and 2 filed a claim petition stating that while
the deceased was riding in his two-wheeler on 18.12.2008, a bus insured
with the appellant came in a rash and negligent manner from behind and
dashed against the two-wheeler of the deceased, as a result of which, the
deceased was thrown out of the two-wheeler and sustained fatal injuries.
3. The 3rd respondent herein/the owner of the bus filed a counter
denying the averments and stated that the accident did not take place due
to the negligence of the bus driver.
4. The appellant filed a counter reiterating the counter filed by the
3rd respondent and submitted that in any case, the compensation claimed
was excessive.
5. Before the Tribunal, the claimants examined P.W.1 to P.W.3 and
marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.14. The appellant had neither examined witnesses
nor marked any documents.
6. The Tribunal, after taking into consideration the oral and
documentary evidence, held that the accident took place due to the rash
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and negligent driving of the bus driver and awarded a total compensation
of Rs.15,22,000/-.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the
finding on negligence is erroneous; and that the compensation awarded
by the Tribunal is excessive.
8. Though notice has been served on the 3rd respondent, none has
entered appearance. Mr.K.K.Senthil, has filed vakalat for the 1st
respondent.
9. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made
on either side and carefully perused the materials available on record.
10. The points for consideration in the instant appeal are as
follows:
a)Whether the finding on negligence by the Tribunal
is justified; and
b)Whether the quantum of compensation awarded
by the Tribunal is just and reasonable.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11. As regards the first point, it is seen that the claimants had
examined P.W.2, an eyewitness to the occurrence, who had clearly
deposed that while the deceased was riding his bike on the left side of the
road, the bus belonging to the 3rd respondent came in a rash and negligent
manner from behind and dashed against the two-wheeler of the deceased,
which has caused the accident. The claimants had also marked Ex.P.1 to
corroborate the evidence of P.W.2. The appellant had neither examined
any witness nor marked any document, as stated earlier. In the absence of
any evidence produced, it cannot be said that the finding of the Tribunal
on negligence is erroneous. Hence, point No.1 is answered accordingly.
12. As regards the quantum of compensation, it is seen that
admittedly, the deceased was an income tax assessee, and the claimants
had produced Ex.P.11, the income tax returns filed by the deceased for
the assessment years 2005-2006, 2006-2007, and 2007-2008, which
would show that the deceased was earning more than Rs.1 lakh per
annum. The claimants had also marked Ex.P.7, to show that the deceased
was doing business of lubricant oil trading in Thanjavur. Considering all
the above documents, the Tribunal has fixed the notional income of the
deceased at Rs.1,20,000/- per annum, which cannot be faulted. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
compensation under the other heads is also just and reasonable, and there
is no reason to interfere in the award. Thus, the compensation awarded
by the Tribunal at Rs.15,22,000/- is reasonable. Hence, the award of the
Tribunal is confirmed.
13. In fine, this appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
14. The appellant shall deposit the compensation amount after
deducting the amount already deposited, within a period of four weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the
claimants are permitted to withdraw the amount as per the apportionment
fixed by the Tribunal.
05.09.2024
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
CM
To
1.Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District and Sessions
Court (Special Court under Essential Commodities Act), Thanjavur.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
CM
Judgment made in
05.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
