IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 16.11.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM C.M.A.No.2216 of 2008 and C.M.P.No.1486 of 2010 National Insurance Company Limited by its Manager, Namakkal. ... Appellant/2nd Respondent Versus 1.C.Chandra 2.Minor S.Rajkamal 3.Minor S.Riteesh Kumar (Minors represented by and NF 1st Respondent) 4.Anjaliammal 5.V.Padmavathy ... Respondents 1 to 4 / Petitioners 1 to 4 (5th Respondent exparte in Lower Court and hence notice may be dispensed with) ... 5th Respondent / 1st Respondent Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act 1988 against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P. No.169 of 2005 on 28.04.2006 on the file of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Court, Krishnagiri. For Appellant : Mr.N.Vijayaraghavan For Respondents : Mr.V.Vijayakumar for R1 to R4 J U D G M E N T This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P. No.169 of 2005 on 28.04.2006 on the file of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Court, Krishnagiri. 2.The facts of the case are as follows: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The Insurance Company is the appellant. One person by name Sudhanthira Selvan is the deceased. A claim was preferred by the wife, two minor children and the mother of the deceased informing that the husband of the first claimant suffered a fatal accident at about 10.00 hours on 18.12.2003 while riding his TVS Victor vehicle. He was hit by a Tanker Lorry bearing Registration No.KA 01 D 6545 insured with the appellant Corporation, as a result of which, he suffered multiple injuries and died despite treatment on the very same day of the accident. Informing that the deceased was 34 years of age, was a private medical practitioner earning about Rs.8,000/- per month, the claimants sought payment of compensation in a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-. 3. Before the Tribunal the claimant examined two witnesses and marked the following exhibits. Ex.P.1 : Copy of First Information Report Ex.P.2 : Postmortem Report Ex.P.3 : Insurance Policy of lorry Ex.P.4 : Certificate Issued by the Private Medical Practitioner's Association of India, Madras. Ex.P.5 : Death Certificate Ex.P.6 : Legal Heir Certificate Ex.P.7 : Police Enquiry Report The respondent/Corporation examined one witness. No exhibits were marked. 4. Before the tribunal, the appellant/Insurance company had disputed its liability, contending that the FIR itself had been registered after 15 days of the alleged occurrence, that the first informant had not been examined before the Tribunal and that the Doctor, who has treated the deceased has not been examined. PW2, an alleged eye witness to the occurrence had spoken thereto. Finding truth in the claim, the Tribunal has directed payment. It took the age of the deceased to be 34, assumed he would have earned Rs.25,000/- per month and that his contribution to his family to be Rs.20,000/-, applied the multiplier of 17 and arrived at loss of dependency at Rs.3,40,000/-. It awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.2000/- towards transport expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering, a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of love and affection suffered by the minor children and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium suffered by the wife and Rs.10,000/- for loss of life expectancy. It directed payment of a total sum of Rs.3,77,000/- with 7.5% per annum. The compensation was apportioned and a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- was directed to be paid to the wife, Rs.1,00,000/- to each of the minor children, to be held in fixed deposit and a sum of Rs.52,000/- to the mother of the deceased together with proportionate interest. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Tribunal erred in not considering the contention of the appellant of this being a case of false claim as the FIR in the case was registered more than 15 days after the occurrence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants would submit that PW2 was an eye witness to the occurrence. Considering the rival submissions, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. On the one hand, we have a mere allegation of a false claim based on the strength of delay in FIR without any other materials to support such plea while on the other we have the evidence of one who informs of having witnessed the accident. Hence, this Court finds that the Tribunal has committed no error in entertaining the claim of the Respondents/ Claimants. Again in the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the compensation awarded under various heads are well merited. This Court finds no reason to interfere with and accordingly this appeal stands dismissed. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/ Assistant Registrar /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar mps To 1 The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Court, Krishnagiri. 2 The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras. C.M.A.No.2216 of 2008 and C.M.P.No.1486 of 2010 SA(CO) DRL :05/05/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/