IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 01.03.2011 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.1070 OF 2000 & C.M.P.No.1922 of 2010 in Cross Objection No.16 of 2001 1.B.Deepan 2.National Insurance Co. Ltd., Motor Third Party Claims Office, 38, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. ... Appellants Vs. 1.Thirumalai 2.Bhagyaraj (minor) 3.Muthukumar (minor) 4.Karthick (minor) 5.Pechiammal 6.Gurusamy ... Respondents (Minors 2 to 4 rep by mother and 1st Respondent) Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and Decree dated 31.08.1999 made in M.C.O.P.No.1754 of 1996, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, III Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai – 600 104. For Appellants : M/s.N.Rosi Naidu For Respondents: Mr.N.M.Muthurajan J U D G M E N T The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred by the appellant / National Insurance Co. Ltd., against the award and Decree dated 31.08.1999 made in M.C.O.P.No.1754 of 1996, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, III Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai – 600 104. 2.The short facts of the case are as follows: On 01.04.1994 at around 13.30 hours, the deceased was doing his Metal Quarry work at Alpar Hills and at that time the lorry bearing https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ registration No.TSI 3193, had been driven by its driver in a reckless manner and dashed against the deceased Kutti Raja. Hence, the legal- heirs of the deceased have filed the claim petition against the respondents and claiming a compensation a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- with interest. 3.The second respondent / Insurance Company had filed a counter statement and resisted the claim petition. The respondent denied the said accident that it had been committed by the driver of the first respondent. The respondent denied the age, income and occupation of the claimant. The compensation amount is excessive. 4.On the pleas of both parties, the Tribunal had framed two issues for consideration, namely; “(i)Was the accident committed by the Lorry driver in a rash and negligent manner? (ii)Whether claimants are entitled to receive compensation?” 5.On the side of the claimants two witnesses were examined and six documents were marked. On the side of the respondent no witness was examined and no document was marked. 6.PW1 had adduced evidence stating that she is the wife and claimants 2 to 4 are the children and claimants 5 and 6 are parents of the deceased respectively. At the time of the accident, the age of the deceased was 33 years and he was engaged as a stone breaker and was earning a sum of RS.1,200/- per week, besides he had received Rs.10/- per day as batta. She further stated that her husband had expired in the lorry accident committed by its driver. The same was witnessed by PW2, who also spoke in one voice. In order to prove the accident, First Information Report, Rough Sketch, Charge Sheet, Postmortem Certificate were marked. 7.On considering the evidence of the witnesses and on perusal of the documentary evidence, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.4,33,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. 8.Aggrieved by the said award, the appellant / Insurance Company has filed the above appeal. 9.The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Tribunal had erroneously come to the conclusion that the accident was committed by the driver of the lorry. In the absence of documentary evidence, the Tribunal arbitrarily fixed the income, occupation and age of the deceased and on this basis the award had been given. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 10.The learned counsel for the claimants emphatically argued that the claimants comprise of a young widow, minor children and aged parents, who are depending upon the income of the deceased, who was the sole breadwinner of the family. The deceased was engaged as a stone breaker at a Quarry, which is a hard working occupation, so he was earning Rs.1,200/- per week, besides a batta of Rs.10/- per day. The age, income and occupation are all bona-fide. Considering all aspects, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.4,33,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, as compensation. In order to prove the accident committed by the driver of the lorry, who was punished before the Criminal Court. 11.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the impugned award, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned decision given by the Tribunal is proper, considering the age, income and occupation and dependency of the deceased, this Court is unable to find any discrepancy in the said award, therefore, it is confirmed as fair and equitable. 12.It is open to the claimants to withdraw their apportioned share amount with accrued interest thereon as fixed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.1754 of 1996, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, III Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai – 600 104, after filing necessary payment out application, subject to withdrawals if any made already. 13.Resultantly, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the Award and Decree, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on the file of III Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai, made in M.C.O.P.No.1754 of 1996, dated 31.08.1999 is confirmed. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar //true copy// Sub Asst.Registrar r n s https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To The III Judge, Court of Small Causes, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chennai. 1 cc to Mr.N.M.Muthurajan, Advocate, Sr.No.14468 1 cc to Mr.N.Rosi Naidu, Advocate, Sr.No.14718 C.M.A.NO.1070 OF 2000 & C.M.P.No.1922 of 2010 in CROSS OBJECTION NO.16 OF 2001 JRG {CO} TP/16.5.2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/