1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 26.08.2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.879 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.2 of 2011 M/s.National Insurance Co. Ltd through its Divisional Manager, 3, North Veli Street, Madurai. .. Appellant Vs. 1.M.Thenmozhi 2.M.Kanmani 3.M.Madhavi 4.Minor M.Saravanan (Minor fourth respondent represented through his mother and next friend viz., first respondent) 5.M/s.Southern Bright Carriers represented through A.Dharmaraj. .. Respondents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 09.10.2009 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1083 of 2005 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional District Court (Fast Track Court No.I), Madurai. For Appellant .. M/s.P.Malini For Respondent .. Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar 1 to 4 For Respondent .. No appearance No.5 JUDGMENT This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been directed to set aside the award dated 09.10.2009 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1083 of 2005 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional District Court (Fast Track Court No.I), Madurai. 2. The respondents 1 to 4 herein as petitioners have filed M.C.O.P.No.1083 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal praying to pass an award for the amount mentioned therein, wherein the present appellant has been shown as second respondent. 3. It is averred in the petition that on 23.12.2004 at about 20.20 hours, the deceased Mathivanan has driven a motor bike bearing Registration https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 No.TN-59-A-6759 by way of observing traffic rules. At that time, the driver of the first respondent has driven the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-04-F-3236 in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the bike, which has been driven by the deceased. Due to accident, he has had instantaneous death. The lorry which caused the accident has been insured with the second respondent. Under the said circumstances, the present petition has been filed for getting compensation as mentioned therein. 4. In the counter filed on the side of the second respondent, it is averred that the driver of the first respondent is not responsible for the accident and the petitioners have claimed excessive compensation and therefore the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. On the basis of the available evidence on record the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.6,38,200/- by way of compensation. With regard to quantum of compensation, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred at the instance of the second respondent as appellant. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/second respondent has not touched the quantum of compensation fixed on the basis of remaining period of service of the deceased. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on the basis of the Salary Certificate of the deceased and also on the basis of the remaining period of service and after giving proper deduction has fixed Rs.2,37,280/- and therefore the same can be accepted. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/second respondent has touched the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal with regard to compensation fixed for the period after retirement of the deceased. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has fixed Rs.3,55,920/- for the period, which occurred after retirement of the deceased. 7. The main attack made on the side of the appellant/second respondent is that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal without considering the family pension has erroneously fixed Rs.3,55,920/- for the period mentioned supra and therefore the quantum of compensation fixed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is liable to be modified. 8. In fact, this Court has perused the method adopted by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal with regard to the period, which occurred after retirement of the deceased and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has given 50% of the monthly emoluments by way of compensation and the same has been done in accordance with the existing rules and therefore the amount fixed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal with regard to the period, which occurred after retirement of the deceased is also quite correct and the same need not be interfered with. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/second respondent has not touched the quantum of compensation awarded in respect of other heads and altogether this Court has not found any flaw in the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and therefore the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal deserves to be dismissed. 10. In fine, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed without costs and the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.1083 of 2005 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 District Court (Fast Track Court No.I), Madurai is confirmed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(RTI) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Additional District Court (Fast Track Court No.I), Madurai. +1 cc to Mr.P.Malini, Advocate, SR.No.29447 +1 CC to Mr.H.lakshmi Shankar, advocate, Sr.No.29265 smn C.M.A(MD)No.879 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 26.08.2011 TR : 09.09.2011 : 3p/4c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/