Tamil Nadu State Transport v. Mallika

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 29.09.2021

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE C.M.A. No. 2677 of 2009 Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (Salem Division-1) Ltd, Represented by its Managing Director, No.12, Ramakrishna Road, Salem - 636 007.

(Formerly known as Anna Transport Corporation, Slame-7) (CT Accepted vide as per order of this Court dated 12.06.2001 made in CMP No.8087/2001) ... Appellant/1st Respondent Vs

1. Mallika ...1st Respondent/1st Claimant

2. (Minor) Mano ...2nd Respondent/2nd Claimant

3. (Minor) Manjukavi ...3rd Respondent/3rd Claimant (Respondents 2 and 3 are represented through their natural guardian and mother, the first respondent herein)

4. Chinnammal ...4th Respondent/Claimant

5. T.Sengamalai ...5th Respondent/2nd Respondent Prayer: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree made in M.C.O.P.No. 151 of 1997 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (I Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate), Salem dated 12.02.1999. For Appellant : Mr. D.Raghu For Respondent 1 to 4 : No appearance R5 : Dismissed as not preferred in Lower Court

JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed by the Transport Corporation, challenging the award dated 12.02.1999, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Salem, in M.C.O.P.No.151 of 1997.

2. The appellant Transport Corporation has primarily challenged the impugned award, questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the respondents/claimants. The respondents/claimants are the dependants of the deceased Mani, who died on 04.05.1996 as a result of an accident caused by the bus, owned by the appellant Transport Corporation.

3. The cause of the accident which resulted in the death of Mani has not been disputed by the respondents before the Tribunal, as seen from the evidence available on record.

4. The only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in favour of the respondents/claimants is excessive or not.

5. The deceased Mani was having the educational qualification of M.A.,B.Ed., and he was working as a Junior Assistant in Panchayat Union Office, Gangavalli, drawing a salary of Rs.3,013/- (Rupees Three Thousand and Thirteen only) per month, as seen from the claim petition filed by the respondents/claimants.

6. Before the Tribunal, the respondents/claimants have filed the pay certificate of the deceased which has been marked as Ex.A5. The Tribunal has accepted the same and fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,013/- (Rupees Three Thousand and Thirteen only) and assessed the loss of dependency at Rs.3,84,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Eighty Four Thousand only) at the rate of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) per month for a period of 16 years.

7. The Tribunal has also awarded a compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) towards loss of consortium to the first respondent/first claimant, who is the wife of the deceased. The Tribunal has also awarded a compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) towards loss of love and affection.

8. The Tribunal has also awarded a compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) towards funeral expenses. The total compensation of Rs.3,99,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Ninety Nine Thousand only) awarded by the Tribunal under various heads cannot be considered to be excessive as alleged by the appellant Transport Corporation before the Tribunal.

9. The appellant Transport Corporation has not filed any documents to disprove the contentions of the respondents/claimants with regard to the age, avocation, monthly income and educational qualifications of the deceased.

10. Admittedly, no contra evidence has been produced by the appellant Transport corporation before the Tribunal. Only based on the evidence available on record, the Tribunal has assessed the compensation payable to the respondents/claimants.

11. This Court is also of the considered view that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the impugned order cannot be considered to be excessive, as alleged by the appellant Transport Corporation.

12. The appeal is of the year 2009 and till date notice has also not been served on the respondents.

13. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this appeal. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs.

14. The appellant / Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire award amount together with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of numbering till the date of realization, less the amount, if any, already deposited to the credit of M.C.O.P. 151 of 1997 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (I Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate), Salem within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such deposit being made, the Tribunal is directed to transfer the award amount

directly to the bank account of the respondents /claimants, through RTGS, within a period of two weeks thereafter as per the ratio of apportionment fixed by the Tribunal. SD/- ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SUB ASSISTANT REGISTRAR rgi To

1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, I Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem.

2. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras - 104.

+1cc to Mr.D.Raghu, Advocate Sr.50319 C.M.A. No. 2677 of 2009 jpl[co] srg 06/01/2022