1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 05.03.2019 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN C.M.A.No.33 of 2007 and M.P.No.1 of 2007 United India Insurance Company Limited, Kumar Complex, 146/N,2nd Floor, Tiruchencode,Namakkal District. ... Appellant Versus 1. Madhammal 2. Thailiyammal 3. Palanisamy 4. Chinnaponnu 5. R. Palanisamy 6. C.Palanisamy ... Respondents R-5 set Ex-parte in the lower Court Prayer: This Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and Decree dated 12.07.2006, made in M.C.O.P.No.472 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 2nd Judge Small causes Court, at Chennai. For Appellant :Mr.R. Ravichandran For Respondents 1 to 4: Mr.M. Marntha Pandiyan For R5 & R6 : Exparte http://www.judis.nic.in 2 J U D G M E N T Challenging the negligence as well as the quantum of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal, in M.C.O.P.No.472 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 2nd Judge, Court of Small causes at Chennai, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 2. On 01.02.1997 at about 7.20 p.m in Peters Road, Chennai when the deceased Kandan along with several persons were proceeding in a Bus bearing Registration No.TAM 6406, the driver of the bus rashly and negligently, dashed the bus on a tree. In the result the deceased Kandan sustained grievous injuries and died. Hence, the respondents 1 to 4 herein who are the legal heirs of the deceased filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 2nd Judge, Court of Small causes at Chennai, seeking compensation for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. The Tribunal, on a consideration of oral and documentary evidence, has awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- payable with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. http://www.judis.nic.in 3 3. Challenging the same as excessive and disproportionate, the appellant has filed this appeal. 4. Heard the arguments of counsel for the appellant and perused the materials available on record. Though notice was ordered to the respondent and the same is yet to be completed for service. 5. As far as the award of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has applied its mind and awarded compensation properly, which do not warrant interference by this Court. 6. The driver of the vehicle rashly and negligently dashed the bus on a tree therefore, the accident took place. The other persons who were sitting in the top portion of the roof of the bus is totally illegal. But admittedly it is the act of god, as there was not enough space inside the bus they were sitting in the top roof of the bus and hence they sustained injuries. Due to the bus touching on a tree by the bus driver and later on the injured died. 7. The Tribunal has considered the case in proper manner. Admittedly the award of Rs.1,00,000/- was very low and no appeal http://www.judis.nic.in 4 was filed by the claimant, the appellant insurance company challenged the said award which is very minimum amount for a death of a person. 8. Upon perusing the entire award of the Tribunal, it is seen that the Tribunal entered into its findings based on oral and documentary evidence before it and has awarded a just and fair compensation, which need not be interfered with by this Court in this appeal and the quantum of compensation assessed by the Tribunal, cannot be said to be improper. Since, the Tribunal has applied its mind properly and granted the award with the correct head which is well considered order. 9. In the result, (a) this appeal is dismissed and the Judgment and Decree of the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.472 of 1999, dated 12.07.2006 is confirmed. (b) the appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit amount as awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 9% per annum within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and recover the same from the 5th respondent/owner of the vehicle. http://www.judis.nic.in 5 (c) On such deposit the respondents 1 to 4 are permitted to withdraw and disburse the amount by way of filing proper application before the Tribunal. (d) There will be no order as to costs. (e) Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 05.03.2019 smn Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No To. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 2nd Judge, Court of Small causes, Chennai http://www.judis.nic.in 6 M.V.MURALIDARAN,J. smn C.M.A. No.33 of 2007 M.P.No.1 of 2007 05.03.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in