Madras High Court
Divisional Manager vs Sivachitra ...1St on 10 September, 2024
C.M.A.(MD)No.125 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 10.09.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
C.M.A(MD)No. 574 of 2024
and C.M.P(MD)No.7313 of 2024
Divisional Manager
Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
Chennai, Divisional Office,
DDJ Center, Vadaseri, Nagercoil,
Nagercoil Village, Agastheeswaram Taluk,
Kanyakumari District. ... Appellant/Respondent No.3
Vs.
1.Sivachitra ...1st Respondent/Petitioner
2.V.Perumal ... 2nd Respondent/1st respondent
3.Khader Mohideen ... 3rd Respondent/2nd Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated
09.10.2013 passed in M.C.O.P.No.268 of 2022 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal cum Special Court for Forest Offences,
Nagercoil.
For Appellant : Mr.E.Chandrasekaran
For R1 : Mr.D.Saravanan
R2 & R3 : Dispensed with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.1 of 6
C.M.A.(MD)No.125 of 2022
JUDGMENT
The instant appeal has been filed challenging the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
2. A claim petition was filed for the damages caused to the lorry of
the claimant in the accident. Since the appeal challenges the quantum of
compensation, it would be unnecessary to narrate the facts leading to the
filing of the claim petition and the manner of accident for the disposal of
the instant appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the
Tribunal had awarded an excess amount of Rs.2,50,000/- as total
compensation; that the Tribunal has ignored the fact that the claimant had
received a sum of Rs.78,000/- by sale of the damaged lorry, which has to
be deducted; that Rs.40,000/- awarded as loss of income does not arise in
a case, where the compensation was claimed for damage to the vehicle;
that the claimant had not established that he had spent Rs.10,000/-
towards towing charges; and therefore, there is no need to award
compensation under the said head.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent/claimant, per contra,
submitted that the Tribunal had awarded the compensation by taking note
of the sale consideration received by the appellant by the sale of the lorry
after the accident; that the award of compensation under the other heads
is reasonable, and hence, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
5. This Court gave its anxious consideration to the submissions
made on either side and perused the materials available on record
carefully.
6. The only point for consideration in the instant appeal is whether
the award of compensation is just and reasonable.
7. As regards the 1st submission of the appellant that Rs.78,000/-
being the sale consideration of the damaged lorry should be deducted,
this Court is of the view that the Tribunal had awarded Rs.2,00,000/-
(Rupees Two Lakhs only) towards damage to the lorry after taking into
consideration the fact that the appellant had sold the lorry for Rs.
78,000/-. Since the sale consideration has already been taken into
consideration, there cannot be any further deduction. Hence, the amount
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of Rs.2 lakhs awarded as compensation for the damage caused to the
lorry is justified.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant has rightly pointed out
that since the claim petition was filed claiming compensation for the
damage to the vehicle, the Tribunal ought not to have awarded
compensation under the head 'loss of income'. This Court is of the view
that Rs.40,000/- awarded under the head loss of income is not justified
and the claimant would not be entitled to the amount of compensation
under the head.
9. As regards the amount awarded under the head towing charges
at Rs.10,000/-, there is no evidence produced on the side of the claimant
for spending the said sum. Therefore, this Court is of the view that a sum
of Rs.10,000/- awarded under the said head may not be justified. Thus, a
sum of Rs.50,000/- has to be reduced from the total compensation
granted by the Tribunal. The 1st respondent/claimant is entitled to a total
compensation of Rs.2 lakhs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that a portion
of the award amount was deposited to the credit of M.C.O.P. No.268 of
2022 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Special
Court for Forest Offences, Nagercoil. The appellant shall deposit the
balance amount, if any, as per the above award within a period of four
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such
deposit, the 1st respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the same by
filing a suitable application.
11. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
10.09.2024
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
CM
To
1.Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Judge (Subordinate Judge) of
Periyakulam.
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
21.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
