AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C.S. Karnan, J.—The appellants/claimants have preferred the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 15.12.2004, made in
M.C.O.P. No. 1563 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District & Sessions Court (Fast Track Court No. I),
Chennai. The short facts of the case are as follows:-
That on 24.05.1997, at about 02.15 p.m., when the deceased Manoharan, aged about 52 years, who was working as a Masthoor at Madras
Doct Labour Board, was crossing Rajaji Salai, the rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No. TN09 J0127, rode it at a high speed and
dashed against him. As a result, the deceased Manoharan sustained injuries and succumbed to it. Hence, the claim petition had been filed by the
legal heirs of the deceased against the owner and Insurance Company of the motorcycle.
The second respondent Insurance Company had filed a counter statement and resisted the claim petition. They had stated in their counter
statement that the rider of the motorcycle did not possess a valid driving licence and as such there is a breach of policy conditions. Further, the
deceased had suddenly crossed the road without noticing the oncoming vehicle. Further, the averments made in the claim petition regarding age,
income and occupation of the deceased and legal heirs of the claimants were also not admitted. It was submitted that the legal heirs of the
deceased had filed two claim petitions namely M.C.O.P. Nos. 1563 and 1724 of 1999, on the same accident against the Insurance Company.
The third and fourth respondents had filed their common counter statement stating that they are the daughters of the deceased Manoharan. The
second claimant in M.C.O.P. No. 1563 of 1999 is the son of the late. Manoharan. They had submitted that they had tried the claim petition in
M.C.O.P. No. 1724 of 1999, which is pending. In the said petition, the Insurance Company had not come forward to contest the case. Further,
the mother of the respondents is not impleaded as a necessary party. Hence, they had prayed to dismiss the above claim petition.
On considering the averments of both sides, the Tribunal had framed two issues namely:
i. Due to whose negligence the accident had occurred? and
ii. Whether the claimants are entitled to claim compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation?
On the claimants'' side two witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 and 2 and 15 documents were marked as Exs. P1 to P15 namely FIR, medical
records, medical bills, salary certificate, legal heir certificate, order made in M.O.P. No. 314 of 1989, marriage invitation, marriage registration
certificate, port trust documents, family pension particulars in the name of M. Jikki, free medical treatment particulars, voter list, postmortem
certificate and ID card of P.W.2. On the side of the third respondent, she was examined as R.W.1 and three documents were marked as Exs. R1
to R3 namely legal heir certificate, copies of judgment and decree in O.S. No. 224 of 1998.
P.W.1 had adduced evidence that on 24.05.1997 at about 02.15 p.m., when her husband the deceased Manoharan was proceeding on the
Rajaji Salai, the rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No. TN09 J0127, ridden by it''s rider in a negligent manner, had dashed against her
husband. She further stated that her husband had been admitted at National Hospital on 24.05.1997, wherein he had received treatment, but in
spite of treatment, he had succumbed to his injuries on 28.05.1997.
P.W.1 further stated that she is the wife of the deceased and the second claimant namely Kumaran is the son of the deceased and that the third
and fourth respondents are the daughters of the deceased. Further, she had marked Exs. P5 legal heir certificate, wherein it was mentioned that all
the four claimants are the legal heirs of the deceased.
Further, P.W.1 had stated that the deceased had divorced his first wife namely Navamani through Court of law. Supporting this contention, she
had marked Exs. A6 and A7. Further, P.W.1 had adduced that the fourth respondent is the unmarried daughter of the deceased and that she and
the second respondent are under the care of the deceased husband. Further, she and the second claimant and the respondents 3 and 4 have
received the interest benefits of the deceased from Port Trust and besides that she is receiving the family pension of the deceased. Further, she is
also getting free medical treatment from the Port Trust Hospital as she was the legally wedded wife of the deceased Manoharan. Further, P.W.1
had deposed that the divorced first wife Navamani had also filed a claim petition on the same accident and it was dismissed.
P.W.2 Ganesan had adduced evidence that he was working with the deceased and he had witnessed the said accident. He had deposed
evidence on similar lines to that of P.W.1 regarding mode of accident.
R.W.1 had adduced evidence that she had filed O.S. No. 224 of 1998. In the said suit, the first claimant was not found to be the wife of the
deceased.
On considering the evidence of the witnesses, the Tribunal had observed that the first and second claimants and the respondents 3 and 4 are
the legal heirs of the deceased Manoharan. The Tribunal, on scrutiny of oral and documentary evidences, awarded a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- as
compensation. Further, the Tribunal had apportioned the compensation amount equally amongst all the four claimants.
Against the said Award, the claimants namely Jikki and Kumaran have preferred the present civil miscellaneous appeal.
The learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that the Tribunal had apportioned the compensation amount equally amongst all the four
claimants, which is not appropriate. The Tribunal had assessed the compensation as a sum of Rs. 8,49,190/-, on the basis of age, income,
occupation and dependency of the deceased. But, the Tribunal had granted a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- as the claimants had claimed Rs. 6,00,000/-.
Further, the Tribunal had reduced a sum of Rs. 25,000/- from the award, which had been paid by the owner of the vehicle. The deceased had
undergone medical treatment for a period of four days for which the Tribunal had not granted compensation.
The learned counsel for the third respondent has submitted that the respondents 3 and 4 are the daughters of the deceased and they are
entitled to receive adequate compensation.
The learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that the Tribunal had assessed the compensation in an appropriate manner and
granted the same.
On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on all sides, this Court does not find any
discrepancy in the conclusions arrived at regarding negligence, liability and quantum of compensation.
This Court is of the further view that the first appellant herein/first claimant had adduced evidence that the respondents 3 and 4 were born to
Late. Manoharan, through his first wife and the second claimant was also born to the Late. Manoharan through his first wife. However, all the four
persons had received the death and retirement benefits of the deceased Manoharan as legal heirs. The second claimant, being the legal heir of the
deceased, got appointment in the port trust. Further, the first claimant is receiving family pension and also enjoying medical aid extended by Port
Trust, being the legal heir of the deceased Manoharan. The quantum of compensation is also decided in an appropriate manner. Therefore, the
above appeal does not have any merits to allow it.
Hence, this Court directs the second respondent Insurance Company to execute the Award passed by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P. No. 1563 of
1999, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District & Sessions Court (Fast Track Court No. I), Chennai, within a period
of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
After such a deposit having been made, it is open to all the claimants to withdraw their apportioned compensation share amount with accrued
interest thereon, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P. No. 1563 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District &
Sessions Court (Fast Track Court No. I), Chennai, after filing a memo along with a copy of this Order. In the result, this civil miscellaneous appeal
is dismissed and the Judgment and decree dated 15.12.2004, made in M.C.O.P. No. 1563 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Additional District & Sessions Court (Fast Track Court No. I), Chennai, is confirmed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed. There is no order as to costs.