IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 14.02.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN C.M.A. No. 2903 of 2007 United India Insurance Co Ltd Divisional Office M.S.M. Complex Ranipet. ... Appellant/ IInd Respondent Versus 1. Govindammal 2. Kuppan 3. Suseela Shanmugam .. Respondents/Petitioners 1 of 2 & 1st Responden Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 19 against the Judgment and Decree dated 23.12.2006 made in M.C.O.P. N 411 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribun (Additional District and Sessions Judge) Fast Track Court – I Ranipet. For Appellant : Mr. J. Chandran For Respondents : Mr. V. Jaganathan for RR1 and 2 No appearance for R3 JUDGMENT The insurance company is the appellant in this appeal. T insurance company is aggrieved by the grant of an award Rs.2,10,000/- in favour of the claimants/respondents 1 and 2 here for the death of the deceased Nandan. The claimants are the moth and father of the deceased. 2. According to the claimants, on 25.05.1998 at about 2.45 when the deceased was proceeding in the lorry bearing Registrati No. TN 23 X 7061 as an authorised representative of the owner of t goods in the lorry to carry the leather, at Uttukadu to Sathiave Road, near Peradam Village, the driver of the lorry, in order avoid a head-on-collision with an on-coming lorry, dashed against palm tree. Immediately, the deceased was taken to the hospital, b he succumbed to the injuries after six hours of the accident. At t https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ time of accident, the deceased was 19 years old and he was working a Skilled worker with M/s. Vimal Leathers, Ranipet and earni Rs.3,500/- per month. Therefore, for the death of the deceased, t claimants have filed the claim petition claiming Rs.5,00,000/- compensation. 3. The insurance company admits the date, time and manner which the accident occurred, but disputes the liability on the grou that the claimants have originally approached the court below a filed M.C.O.P. No. 66 of 1998 claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/ In the said original petition, the claimants have contended that t deceased traveled in the lorry as a representative of the owner the goods. The said Original Petition was subsequently withdrawn not pressed. Thereafter, the claimants have approached the Depu Commissioner of Labour by filing W.C. No. 186 of 1998 alleging th the deceased traveled in the lorry as a coolie. The said W.C. N 186 of 1998 was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour 16.04.2002 the ground that the deceased has not traveled as a cooli but only as a representative of the owner of the goods. On su dismissal, the claimants have once again approached the Tribunal Ranipet Vellore and filed the present MCOP No. 411 of 2004 (MCOP N 193 of 2002) once again alleging that the deceased traveled as representative of the owner of the goods. The court below witho considering the inconsistent stand taken by the claimants, h erroneously passed an award directing the appellant to pay compensation of Rs.2,10,000/- which is not only perverse, b illegal. Therefore, according to the insurance company, the cla petition is not maintainable since the claimants have alrea approached the Tribunal as well as the Deputy Commissioner of Labo and having failed in the same, the second claim petition in MCOP N 411 of 2004 (MCOP No. 193 of 2002) is not at all maintainable and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants/responden 1 and 2 herein would contend that the claimants are the parents the deceased and they have lost their only bread winner. T claimants have innocently approached the Tribunal at the fir instance and got the claim petition in MCOP No. 66 of 1998 withdraw Thereafter, they have approached the Deputy Commissioner of Labo and filed W.C. No. 186 of 1998, which was dismissed by the Depu Commissioner of Labour on 16.03.2002. Thereafter, the claimants ha filed the present claim petition No. 411 of 2004 (MCOP No. 193 2002) before the Tribunal claiming compensation. According to t learned counsel for the claimants/respondents 1 and 2 herein, t Motor Vehicles Act is a benevolent Act framed with the object compensating the victims of motor accidents and therefore, on me technicalities, the claimants should not be deprived of the compensation amount. Further, there is no bar for the claimants approach the Tribunal for the second time as soon as a finding w given by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour that the deceased did n https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ travel as a coolie and he traveled as an authorised representative the owner of the goods. The Court below had also found that t deceased traveled as an authorised representative of the owner of t goods and awarded a meager amount of compensation for the death the deceased at the age of 19 years. Under those circumstances, t question of resjudicata will not arise in this case and t withdrawal of the earlier claim petition in MCOP No. 66 of 1998 the claimants will not be a bar for them to file the present cla petition. Therefore, the learned counsel for the claimant respondents 1 and 2 pray for dismissal of this appeal. 5. Heard both sides. The short point for consideration this appeal is whether the second claim petition filed by t claimants in MCOP No. 411 of 2004 (MCOP No. 193 of 2002) before t court below is maintainable (ii) whether the insurance company liable to pay compensation to the claimants as prayed for. 6. The claimants in this case have been made to run fr pillar to post to get compensation for the death of their son at t age of 19 years due to misguidance by various people. Thou originally the claimants have approached the court below correctl by contending that their son traveled in the lorry as an authoris representative of the owner of the goods, unfortunately, for t reasons best known to them or due to a wrong advise, they ha withdrawn the claim petition No. 66 of 1998 filed at the fir instance. Thereafter, they have filed W.C. No. 186 of 1998 befo the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Chennai claiming compensation f the death of the deceased by contending that the deceased traveled a coolie in the vehicle. Since the owner denied that the deceas was a coolie and stated that he traveled in the vehicle only as h authorised representative of the goods, the Deputy Commission dismissed the W.C. No. 186 of 1998 on 16.04.2002. The claimants ha not preferred any appeal against the Order dated 16.04.2002 in WC N 186 of 1998 but preferred the present claim petition before the cou below for the second time, once again alleging that the deceas traveled in the vehicle only a an authorised representative of t owner of the goods. The Court below also gave a finding that t deceased traveled in the vehicle as an authorised representative the owner of the goods. Therefore, both the court below as well the Deputy Commissioner of Labour have categorically given a findi that the deceased traveled in the vehicle as an authoris representative of the owner of the goods. Since the claimants ha approached two different forums, one before the Motor Acciden Claims Tribunal at the first instance and thereafter before t Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Chennai and taken an inconsiste stand before both the Forum, the insurance company vehemently oppos the maintainability of the present claim petition before the cou below as it is hit by the principles of resjudicata. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7. At this stage, the learned counsel for t claimants/respondents 1 and 2 pleaded that the claimants are atlea entitled to 'no fault' liability under Section 140 of the Mot Vehicles Act since there is a clear finding that the deceas traveled in the vehicle as an authorised representative of the own of the goods and he restricts his claim to this extent so that so amount could be awarded instead of allowing the present appeal fil by the insurance company and consequently dismissing the second cla petition filed by the claimants before the court below. The learn counsel appearing for the insurance company/ appellant also fair submits that under Section 140 of the Act, the claimants are entitl to compensation under 'no fault' liability. 8. In view of the agreement entered into between both sid before this Court and the fact that the claim is restricted payment of compensation under 'no fault' liability alone, the decr and judgment dated 23.12.2006 made in M.C.O.P. No. 411 of 2004 on t file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District a Sessions Judge) Fast Track Court – II, Ranipet is hereby modifi directing the insurance company/appellant herein to pay a sum Rs.50,000/- under no fault liability to the claimants as contemplat under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act with interest at the ra of 7.5% per annum. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the insurance company partly allowed. No costs. The amount awarded by the Court below Rs.2,10,000/- is modified and the claimants are entitled to a tot compensation of Rs.50,000/- under No fault liability as contemplat under Sec.140 of the Motor Vehicles Act along with interest at t rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the MCOP No. 411 2004 namely M.C.O.P. No. 193 of 2002. The insurance compan appellant is directed to deposit the compensation amount with accru interest within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the claimants/responden 1 and 2 herein are permitted to withdraw the compensation amount equal proportion. rsh Sd/- Asst.Registrar // true copy // Sub Asst.Registra https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Additional District and Sessions Judge Fast Track Court – II, Ranipet. 2.The Section Officer VR Section, High Court, Chennai - 104. 1 cc To Mr.J.Chandran, Advocate, SR.11114 1 cc To Mr.V.Jaganathan, Advocate, SR.11100 C.M.A. No. 2903 of 20 GV (CO) KA (20.6.11) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/