IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 04.01.2011 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.697 of 2007 Director, Tamil Nadu Fire and Rescue Services, No.12, Rukmani Lakshmipathi Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. ... Appellant/2nd responden Versus 1.Gandhimalli 2.Minor Anbarasu 3.Minor Kalaiarasan 4.Minor Kavitha (Minor 2 to 4 respondents are rep. by their guardian and mother of the first respondent Tmt.Gandhimalli) 5.Dhanapaul Gounder 6.Kesiammal ... Respondents 1 to 6 / petitioner 1 to 6 7.Mayandi. ... 7th Respondent/ 7th respondent. Prayer: This appeal is preferred against the award and decree dat 18.08.2005 made in M.C.O.P.No.349 of 2003 on the file of Motor Accide Claims Tribunal, (District Court), Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamal District. For Appellant : Mr.R.Munirathinam Additional Government Pleader For Respondents : Mr.S.Kumaradevan for R1 to R6. - - - J U D G M E N T The above appeal has been filed by the appellant / Tamil Nadu Fi and Rescue Services, against the award and decree dated 18.08.2005 ma in M.C.O.P.No.349 of 2003 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribuna (District Court), Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.The short facts of the case are as follows: On 11.03.2003, the first claimant's husband Murthy w proceeding on his motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN22 C 0432 on t Tiruvannamalai Main Road, on the left side of the road and when he w nearing Inam Karianthal Village and at that point of time the seco respondent's departmental vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 37 G 023 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner on the said directi and dashed against the deceased's motorcycle, resulting that he succumb to his injuries, hence, the legal heirs of the deceased have filed t claim petition against the respondents for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- wi interest. 3.The second respondent had filed a counter statement and resist the claim petition. The second respondent denied the accident which w committed by the driver of the vehicle. The respondent stated that 11.03.2003 at about 11.45 am, the driver of the vehicle had driven t fire brigade vehicle with due care and caution to attend a fi extinguishing operation, while the vehicle was proceeding towar Tiruvannamalai, when at the time the deceased had attempted to overta the ongoing bus without noticing the alarm signal given by the fi brigade and dashed against the respondent's vehicle. The age, income a occupation of the deceased are denied. 4.On the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal had framed thr issues, namely; “(i)Was the first respondent who committed the accident , driving in a rash and negligent manner? (ii)Who is liable to pay compensation to the claimant? (iii)If the claimants are entitled to receive compensation? If so what is the quantum of compensation?” 5.On the side of the claimants two witnesses had been examined a five documents were marked. On the side of the respondent no witness w examined nor any document was marked. PW1 stated that she is the wife the deceased, claimants 2 to 4 are children of the deceased and claiman 5 and 6 are the parents of the deceased. PW1 further stated that 11.03.2003 at around 11.45 am, she was standing in front of the hou while her husband was proceeding on his motorcycle towards Tiruvannamala at that time the respondent's fire brigade vehicle driven by its driver a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcyclist, the sa was witnessed by PW2-Lakshmanan, who spoke in one voice. In order to pro the accident she had marked FIR, Postmortem Report. She further stat that the deceased's age was 40 years and he was earning Rs.6,000/- p month through “Bore Well agency”. In order to prove the age of t deceased, she had marked the educational qualification certificate. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6.After considering the evidence, the Tribunal had awarded a sum Rs.3,67,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5%. 7.Aggrieved by the said award the appellant has filed the abo appeal. 8.The learned counsel for the appellant argued that in the sa accident the deceased's vehicle was also involved , who was the cause f the accident. Actually, the deceased had attempted to overtake the ongoi bus without noticing the fire brigade vehicle, as such, the accident w invited by the deceased. The learned counsel further argued that there w no income proof for the deceased. 9.Learned counsel for the claimants argued that the respondent's fi brigade vehicle came in the opposite direction in a reckless manner a dashed against the motorcyclist. The FIR was registered against the driv of the respondent's vehicle. The claimants are six in numbers, comprisi the young wife, three minor children and aged parents. Therefore, t Tribunal ought to have deducted the personal expenses of the deceased 1/5th instead of the Tribunal deducted 1/3rd as personal expenses of t deceased. The income of the deceased is Rs.6,000/-, but the Tribunal fix the income as Rs.3,000/-. 10.In the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments submitt by the learned counsels and on perusing the impugned award of t Tribunal, this Court is of the considered opinion that the compensati amount a sum of Rs.3,67,000/- for the 42 years old deceased as the so breadwinner. Therefore, this Court's considered opinion that the claiman 2 to 4 are minors, they were not granted compensation under the head 'love and affection. Funeral expenses of Rs.2,000/- Consortium Rs.5,000 to the first claimant are on the lower side. Therefore, this Court is n warranted to interfere with the impugned decision of the Tribunal pass in M.C.O.P.No.349 of 2003, dated 18.08.2005 on the file of the Mot Accidents Claims Tribunal, District Court, Tiruvannamalai, hence, t award is confirmed. 11.On 16.03.2007, this Court imposed a condition on the appellant Tamil Nadu Fire and Rescue Services, to deposit the entire compensati amount together with interest and cost to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.349 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, District Cour Tiruvannamalai. Now it is open to the claimants to withdraw t compensation amount with accrued interest thereon lying in the credit M.C.O.P.No.349 of 2003, after filing necessary payment out of applicati in accordance with law, subject to withdrawals if any made already. 12.In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous appeal is dismisse Consequently, the award and decree, passed by the Motor Accident Clai https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Tribunal, District Court, Tiruvannamalai, made in M.C.O.P.No.349 of 200 dated 18.08.2005 is confirmed. There is no order as to costs. r n s Sd/- Asst.Registrar // True copy // Sub Asst.Registrar. To The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Court), Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District. + One CC to the Govt.Pleader, High Court, Madras - 104 (SR384) + One CC to the S.Kumaradevan, Advocate (SR 520) C.M.A.NO.697 OF 20 TAM(CO) AF (13.05.2011) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/