1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 01.08.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM C.M.A(MD)No.784 of 2011 and MP(MD)No.3 of 2011 The Branch Manager M/s.United India Insurance Company Ltd Karaikudi. .. Appellant/2nd Respondent Vs. 1.Ibrahimsha .. Respondent/Petitioner 2.Saminathan .. Respondent/1st Respondent Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 22.10.2010 passed in MACOP.No.108 of 2006 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/1st Additional Sub Court, Melur (Camp Court), Madurai. For Appellant : Mr.S.Ramachandran For Respondents : No appearance JUDGMENT The award dated 22.10.2010 passed in MACOP.No.108 of 2006 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Sub Court, Melur (Camp Court) is being challenged in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 2. The first respondent herein as petitioner has filed MACOP No.108 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal praying to pass an award of Rs.1,50,000/-, wherein the present appellant has been shown as second respondent. 3. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on the basis of the available evidence on record has awarded a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- against the respondents 1 and 2. Against the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred. 4. Even though the respondents have been served with summonses, appearance has not been made. Under the said circumstances the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of on merits on the basis of the contention urged on the side of the appellant/second respondent. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/second respondent has sparingly contended that the deceased is aged about 65 and the petitioner is aged about 50 and the specific case of the petitioner is that the deceased is the wife of the junior paternal uncle of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 petitioner. But to prove the same, no document has been filed and further the petitioner has failed to prove that he is the dependant of the deceased and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal without considering the above factual aspects has erroneously passed the award in question and therefore, the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is liable to be set aside. 6. In fact, this Court has perused the entire averments made in the counter filed by the appellant/second respondent, wherein it has been specifically stated that the petitioner is not related to the deceased nor her dependant. 7. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has simply stated on the basis of oral evidence to the effect that the deceased has lived under the care and custody of the petitioner. Except the oral evidence adduced on the side of the petitioner, no documentary evidence has been let in the side of the petitioner to the effect that the deceased is the wife of the paternal uncle of the petitioner and further, the petitioner has not established to the effect that he is the dependant of the petitioner. Without proving the above aspects, the petitioner is not entitled to get compensation. But as stated supra, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has not at all considered the above factual aspects and it has simply come to the conclusion on the basis of mere oral evidence to the effect that the deceased has lived under the care and custody of the petitioner. Therefore the view taken by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is totally incorrect and the entire award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is liable to be set aside and the matter is liable to be remitted to the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. 8. In fine, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed without cost. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed and the award passed in MACOP.No.108 of 2006 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Sub Court, Melur (Camp Court) is set aside and MCOP No.108 of 2006 is remitted to the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Sub Court, Melur (Camp Court). The first respondent/petitioner is strictly directed to prove that the deceased is the wife of his paternal uncle and also directed to prove that he is the dependant of the deceased. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is directed to dispose of MCOP No.108 of 2006 before the end of October 2011 and report the same to the Registry without fail. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (P&A) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar (C.S) To The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/ First Additional Subordinate Judge (Melur Camp), Madurai. + 1 cc to Mr.S.Ramachandran, Advocate, SR No.25510 C.M.A(MD)No.784 of 2011 01.08.2011 mj RJ/11.8.11 2p/3c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/